Get Vendor Risk Report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context by explaining the 7 signals, the pre-computed triage summary, how to interpret a 'clean' category, and the included contract_exposure and subaward_exposure data. It also discloses the Pro-only restriction. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but every section earns its place: use case, tool distinction, parameter format, signal list, triage guidance, and exposure summary. Bullet points and bolded field names make it scannable and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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's complexity and the availability of an output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains not just what is returned but how to interpret the most important field (triage), what each signal category means, and how to source the required parameter.

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 0% for the uei parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies that uei must be a 12-character Unique Entity ID and tells the agent where to obtain it from other tools, fully compensating for the missing schema documentation.

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: 'Get a 7-signal vendor risk report for one UEI.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_exclusion, which is a binary debarment check, by positioning this as a broader risk-signal read.

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 description explicitly names when to use the tool: for due diligence on teaming or subcontracting before committing to a partner. It also names the alternative check_exclusion and explains the difference, so an agent can route between them without guesswork.

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