Call Vendor Request

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description does not contradict, but it also adds no additional behavioral details. It does not describe side effects, required permissions, or what happens when the request is called. The description relies entirely on annotations, which are minimal.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it concise and efficient. Every word earns its 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 tool has no output schema, a nested object parameter ('requestData') with unspecified structure, and no descriptions of valid request types, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the requestData should contain, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. The description fails to fill gaps left by the schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions, but these descriptions are vague (e.g., 'appropriate request data'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters. It simply repeats the action. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 'Call a request registered to a vendor' clearly states the action (call) and the resource (request registered to a vendor). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'obs-call-request' by specifying the vendor context. However, the term 'call' is somewhat ambiguous and could be more explicit about what the call does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-call-request' or 'obs-describe-request'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred. It simply states the action without usage context.

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