scf_trigger_vendor_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses write operation, role requirement, async nature, output (task ID), and next step. It does not cover destructive potential or idempotency, but for a queue action this is adequate.

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 sentences, no redundancy. Each piece of information earns its place: role, async nature, data sources, output, and next step.

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 covers the tool's behavior thoroughly. It explains what is checked and the follow-up action. Missing details like rate limits or error handling are minor for a simple trigger tool.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions already explain their purpose and sourcing. The main description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the verb ('Queue AI security research'), resource ('vendor'), async behavior, role requirement, and data sources checked. It distinguishes itself from the sibling scf_get_vendor_research by explicitly mentioning polling that endpoint.

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: it is for triggering async vendor research, requires editor+ role, and returns a task ID to poll. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling set.

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