legal_vendor_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it notes routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, it does not reveal whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any rate limits or safety considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 to the point, with two sentences for purpose and two lines for arguments. It is well-structured and easy to read, with no extraneous information. Could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it omits critical details about the tool's operation, such as what 'vendor_screen' does, what kind of free-text objective is expected, what structured inputs are valid, and how the action is dispatched. The description is too minimal to enable confident use without external knowledge.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be beneficial, such as the expected format for inputs or constraints on message length. The added value is modest.

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_screen' domain agent action, which gives a basic idea of the tool's function. However, it does not explain what 'vendor_screen' entails, how it differs from other legal vendor tools like legal_vendor_onboard or legal_vendor_risk_score, or what the output is. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. An agent has no context to decide between legal_vendor_screen and other legal vendor actions.

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