scf_get_vendor

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds useful context by listing what the caller will receive (certifications, assessments, computed risk score, latest research results), but it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limiting. That is acceptable because the annotation covers the main behavioral risk.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the key returned data categories. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema present, the description's enumeration of certifications, assessments, computed risk score, and latest research results provides a helpful return-shape. Given the straightforward required parameters and read-only nature, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool, though a more explicit note about how this relates to get_vendor_research and get_latest_vendor_assessment would be marginally richer.

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 100%, and both org_id and vendor_id already include provenance hints ('obtain from scf_list_organizations' / 'obtain from scf_list_vendors'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one vendor's detail'. It also enumerates the returned content (certifications, assessments, computed risk score, latest research results), which clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like scf_list_vendors and from research/assessment-specific tools.

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 phrase 'Get one vendor's detail' makes the intended use clear: fetch a single vendor's consolidated detail record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using scf_list_vendors for a vendor list or scf_get_vendor_research for research-only results, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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