legal_vendor_risk_score

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

Discloses routing through domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scoping, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, and since annotations are absent, more behavioral context is needed.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Args' block is somewhat unnecessary formatting, but overall it is concise without excessive verbosity.

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 the tool has no annotations, an output schema (not described), and many sibling tools, the description lacks crucial context about return values, prerequisites, or how it fits among other legal vendor actions. It is incomplete for effective selection.

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 0%, so the description's parameter explanations add value: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, the descriptions are minimal and lack examples or constraints, so only partial compensation.

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 states it runs the 'vendor_risk_score' action but does not explain what a vendor risk score is or what the action does. It is better than a pure tautology but still vague, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like legal_vendor_screen or legal_vendor_onboard.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other vendor-related legal tools.

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