contractor_vetting

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

Because no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool computes a score, flags critical failures, and returns recommended checks. It does not explain how 'unknown' answers are handled, how the score is calculated, or whether the operation persists any data.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the main deliverable comes first, the checklist scope second, and the key caveat last. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 description gives a useful high-level view of what the tool returns, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not specify the score scale, how blocking failures are determined, or how the purpose parameter changes behavior, leaving some uncertainty for a 12-question scoring 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?

The schema already documents all parameters and answer IDs, but the description adds useful meaning by explaining that the checklist spans financial, technical, cyber (NIS2), and energy (EPBD) categories. It also hints that purpose selects the NIS2 vs EPBD lens, which adds context beyond the schema's bare 'Vetting purpose' text.

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 deliverable—a NIS2/EPBD contractor vetting score—and its source (12-question checklist) and primary outputs (blocking failure flags and recommended checks). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like assess_epbd_score or check_nis2_readiness, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'contractor vetting' plus the NIS2/EPBD scope clearly implies when this tool is relevant, and the caveat 'Not a formal due-diligence report' sets a boundary. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against alternative sibling tools.

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