procurement_supplier_evaluation

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

The description adds some useful context about authentication and scoping, but does not disclose the destructive nature implied by destructiveHint=true, potential side effects, irreversibility, or what the domain action may change. Since annotations already carry the destructive hint, the description should add concrete behavioral detail but does not.

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, front-loaded with the action, and avoids excessive filler. The routing sentence is useful, and the Args section is minimal. It could be slightly richer, but it is well-structured for its length.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks the domain-level purpose, expected behavior, side effects, and when-to-use guidance needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool confidently. The generic dispatch-wrapper framing leaves too much unspecified for a potentially destructive action.

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 provides minimal but non-trivial semantics: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is better than the bare schema titles, but it still leaves the shape and purpose of structured inputs vague.

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 action name ('Run the procurement domain agent action supplier_evaluation') and explains the routing mechanism. It never states what supplier evaluation actually accomplishes, what inputs it needs semantically, or how it differs from sibling tools like procurement_vendor_risk_assessment or commerce_supplier_evaluation.

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 and scope information ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') explains execution context, but not selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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