scf_trigger_vendor_research

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavior: it is write-scoped to editor+ role, runs async, checks HIBP/NVD/public posture, and returns a task ID rather than results. This exceeds annotation coverage and sets correct expectations.

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 dense sentences, with the action, role, and async nature front-loaded; the rest is a compact list of data sources and return behavior. Every clause 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 no-output-schema trigger tool, the description tells the agent exactly what will happen, what will be returned, and where to poll for results. It might be improved by noting duration or error handling, but the essential invocation and follow-up flow are complete.

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?

Input schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, including how to obtain org_id and vendor_id and the meaning of domain_override. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so baseline 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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Queue'), a resource ('AI security research for a vendor'), and key execution traits ('write — editor+ role, async'). It also names the data sources and distinguishes itself from the retrieval sibling by saying to poll scf_get_vendor_research.

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 provides clear context: use this to kick off asynchronous vendor research, and it points to scf_get_vendor_research for the follow-up read. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives like scf_trigger_vendor_assessment, 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.