procurement_vendor_risk_assessment

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

The description adds useful context about auth and scope: it runs 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' and goes through the domain-agent dispatcher. It does not elaborate on the destructiveHint=true behavior or side effects, but the annotations already communicate that, and there is no contradiction.

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 core action, and contains no filler. The routing/scope sentence and the Args block each earn their place.

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 output schema exists, return values do not need explanation, and the annotations cover safety traits. Still, the description is thin on what actually constitutes a vendor risk assessment, what kinds of objectives belong in message, and how inputs should be structured, leaving the agent to guess on richer usage.

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% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explains that message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds real meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults. It could be stronger with an example or allowed keys for the JSON input, but it is adequate for a generic dispatcher tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run the procurement domain agent action `vendor_risk_assessment`.' It also clarifies that this routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similarly named siblings like commerce_vendor_risk_assessment 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?

The intended use is implied: call it when you want a procurement vendor risk assessment objective executed. The description provides no when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no explanation of how this differs from procurement_supplier_evaluation or procurement_spend_analysis.

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