analyze_vendor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey whether the tool performs reads, writes, or other side effects. 'Get detailed analysis' implies a read operation but does not explicitly state what happens, what data is accessed, or what the output contains. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loading the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks detail that would be useful in the sentence.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation support, the description does not explain what 'detailed analysis' returns or what constitutes a successful invocation. The agent cannot infer what to expect from the tool's response, making it incomplete for a tool without an output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for csvPath and vendorName. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 analyzes a specific vendor, using the verb 'get' and resource 'specific vendor'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_amex_spending or spending_by_category, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or context that would help the agent select it over siblings like find_subscriptions or find_anomalies.

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