scf_get_vendor_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It reveals the polling nature ('Poll this after'), indicating an asynchronous operation. However, it does not disclose expected statuses, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. More detail would be helpful.

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, well-structured sentence plus a short instruction. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. It is easy to parse and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 no output schema, the description lists the return contents (breach history, known vulnerabilities, security posture analysis), which adequately informs the agent about what to expect. It could be more specific about the structure, but the list is sufficient for a polling result.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions that tell the agent to obtain UUIDs from other tools. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond that baseline, so a score 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'vendor research result', and specifies contents: breach history, known vulnerabilities, and security posture analysis. It also links to the sibling tool scf_trigger_vendor_research, distinguishing its role as a retrieval step after triggering.

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?

Explicitly says 'Poll this after scf_trigger_vendor_research', providing clear usage context and sequencing. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context and sibling list make it sufficiently clear.

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