procurement_vendor_onboarding

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

The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, or what side effects occur. With no annotations, this is insufficient 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 well-structured, with clear parameter listing. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could include more useful information without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (context signal), the description does not explain what the action achieves, what success or error responses look like, or how it integrates with the procurement domain. This is a significant gap for a domain-specific tool.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description adds value by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON structured inputs. However, the descriptions are minimal and lack detail on expected format or constraints.

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 vendor_onboarding,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what vendor onboarding entails, limiting the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose. Sibling tools like procurement_vendor_risk_assessment exist but are not distinguished.

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 vs. alternatives. The description only mentions the parameters and routing, but does not specify scenarios or exclusions.

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