legal_vendor_risk_score

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds that the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful contextual information. It does not, however, say whether the underlying action mutates vendor data or what side effects to expect, despite destructiveHint=true.

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 compact and well structured, front-loading the action name and keeping the Args section to two lines with no filler. It earns a high score for economy, even though the content is thin.

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?

The tool has an empty schema-coverage signal, no title, and many near-neighbor siblings, so the description needed to explain what vendor risk scoring is for and what the optional inputs should contain. It provides neither, leaving the agent with only the tool name and generic dispatcher mechanics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to carry parameter meaning, but it only restates generic roles: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. It gives no examples, expected keys, or domain-specific semantics for a vendor risk scoring action.

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 concrete action ('Run the legal domain agent action vendor_risk_score') and gives the agent a domain context, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never states what computing a legal vendor risk score actually does, and it does not differentiate the tool from close siblings such as legal_vendor_screen, legal_vendor_onboard, or procurement_vendor_risk_assessment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the routing note about JWT/tenant/company scope is an invocation detail, not a usage criterion. With so many legal, commerce, and procurement vendor tools in the sibling list, the agent is left to guess selection.

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