Search vendors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (vulnerability counts) but does not explain query behavior (e.g., matching semantics, case sensitivity), pagination via limit/offset, or what happens with no results. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and output without unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema and only 3 parameters, the description is minimally complete for a search tool. However, it lacks context on when to use it versus get_vendor_overview, and it does not specify pagination behavior or query nuance. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter can contain name, category, or headquarters, adding meaning. However, it does not clarify the relationship between these search criteria (e.g., separate fields vs. combined search) or explain limit/offset, though those have schema defaults and constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource (vendors). It specifies search criteria (name, category, or headquarters) and the return value (vulnerability counts). This differentiates it from siblings like search_vulnerabilities and get_vendor_overview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when searching for vendors by attributes), but it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not contrast with get_vendor_overview or search_vulnerabilities, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.