legal_vendor_screen

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description needed to add context about side effects or what gets modified, but it does not. It only notes that the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which adds little behavioral transparency.

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, followed by an Args list. Every sentence is compact and there is no filler, though it is concise partly because it is under-specified.

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 large sibling set with legal_vendor_* tools, an agent cannot reliably decide to use this tool from the description alone. It lacks expected outputs, side effects, meaningful parameter detail, and any indication of what makes this action distinct.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description's Args section provides the only meaning: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. This is minimally helpful but still vague about what structured inputs are expected or how they should be formatted.

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 only restates the tool name/action ('Run the legal domain agent action `vendor_screen`') without explaining what screening a vendor actually does or what outcome it produces. It does not differentiate the purpose from related legal vendor siblings like legal_vendor_onboard or legal_vendor_risk_score.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The routing/scoping note ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') is context, not usage guidance, and there is no mention of exclusions or preferred sibling tools.

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