contractor_vetting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it computes a score, flags blocking (critical) failures, returns recommended additional checks, and explicitly disclaims being a formal due-diligence report. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's output and limitations, though it could further detail the score's interpretation or output format.

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 concise, using just two sentences. The first sentence states the core function and scope, and the second adds behavioral details and a critical limitation. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant 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?

Given the moderate complexity (nested object, enum, no output schema), the description covers purpose, categories, behavior, and limitations, providing a solid overall understanding. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from describing the exact output structure or score range, making the description slightly incomplete for an agent to fully predict the tool's response.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage, listing all question IDs and purpose enum values. The tool description adds contextual meaning by linking categories (financial, technical, cyber, energy) to the answers and explaining how the purpose parameter relates to NIS2/EPBD, which enriches the schema and helps the agent map inputs to the tool's intent.

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's function: computing a vetting score for contractors using a 12-question checklist across NIS2/EPBD categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on contractor vetting rather than general readiness or assessment, and the specific mention of financial, technical, cyber, and energy categories adds precision.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (contractor vetting for NIS2/EPBD) and includes an explicit exclusion ('Not a formal due-diligence report'), indicating when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide detailed when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of maximum guidance.

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