procurement_supplier_evaluation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states that it runs an action with a message and optional inputs, but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any rate limits. The behavioral impact of the evaluation is opaque.

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 concise: a short title, a brief routing note, and parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. The structure is clear but could be slightly more efficient by omitting the routing detail that may be unnecessary for an agent.

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 is a domain agent action with an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what the evaluation does, what criteria are used, or what the return value contains. The agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for evaluating supplier performance, risk, or other factors.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic meaning. However, it lacks details on expected format, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent to guess the structure of the inputs.

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 'Run the procurement domain agent action `supplier_evaluation`' clearly indicating the verb and resource. It is specific enough to differentiate from many sibling tools through its unique action name, though it lacks explicit differentiation from closely related tools like `commerce_supplier_evaluation` 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?

The description mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, implying authorization context. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `procurement_vendor_risk_assessment` or `commerce_supplier_evaluation`. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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