risk_score_supplier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool calculates a score with conservative adjustments and reduces by 10 for strict anti-corruption criteria. However, it does not reveal whether external data sources are used, if authentication is needed, or any side effects. The description provides basic transparency but omits operational details.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second lists possible recommendations, and the third explains the parameter effect. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details are not required. The description covers the essential behavior, parameter impact, and recommendation types. Minor gaps exist, such as missing error handling for invalid CNPJ, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple two-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'criterios_estritos=true' reduces the score by 10 for anti-corruption policies, which goes beyond the schema's brief description. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool calculates a risk score (0-100) for supplier due diligence, specifying it combines ComplianceReport with conservative adjustments and lists the binary recommendations (approve, approve with reservations, investigate, reject). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'analyze_cnpj_compliance' by focusing on risk scoring rather than raw compliance data.

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 implies usage for supplier due diligence by mentioning 'contratacao' (hiring) and describes the effect of the 'criterios_estritos' option, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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