scf_get_vendor_research

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it is a polling endpoint that returns the latest research snapshot after triggering. It does not disclose what happens if the research is not ready, but the explicit 'poll after trigger' guidance covers the primary behavioral requirement.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second gives the actionable workflow instruction. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the result contains, that it is the latest result, and when to call it. The missing detail about pre-completion state is minimized by the polling guidance.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters 100%, including how to obtain them (scf_list_organizations and scf_list_vendors). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest vendor research result') and enumerates the result contents: breach history, known vulnerabilities, and security posture analysis. This distinguishes it from generic vendor lookup tools and vendor assessment tools in the sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit usage context by instructing the agent to poll this after scf_trigger_vendor_research, which clearly sequences it in the research workflow. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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