procurement_vendor_risk_assessment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not specify whether the tool is read-only or destructive, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. 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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds information: action name, routing context, and parameter descriptions. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It also lacks prerequisites, error handling, or any indication of the assessment's nature. For a domain agent action, more contextual completeness is needed.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This helps but could be more specific (e.g., what constitutes a valid objective, example 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 it runs the 'vendor_risk_assessment' action, which implies the purpose of assessing vendor risk, but it does not explicitly state what the tool accomplishes or produces. The name and title suggest risk assessment, but the description is vague and tautological ('Run... action'). It distinguishes from siblings via the specific action name.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commerce_vendor_risk_assessment, legal_vendor_risk_score, or procurement_supplier_evaluation. The description mentions routing context (JWT, tenant, company) but no context on when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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