Get Vendor Risk Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational detail: the list of 7 signals, the `triage` pre-computed summary with its `category`/`label`/`reasons` fields, the semantic meaning of `category: 'clean'`, and the inclusion of `contract_exposure` and `subaward_exposure`. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than some but every sentence carries substance: purpose, use context, parameter guidance, signal breakdown, and exposure fields. It is front-loaded with the core action and deliberately structured with paragraphs and a bullet list, making it scannable. Only minor redundancy (e.g., 'Distinct from check_exclusion' vs. the later explanation) keeps it from a 5.

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 a single parameter, high annotation coverage, and an output schema (has_output_schema=true), the description nonetheless enriches the contract by clarifying the output structure: `triage` as a summary, `signals` list, `contract_exposure`, and `subaward_exposure`. It also teaches the agent how to interpret the result (e.g., clean with empty reasons). Nothing needed to correctly invoke and interpret the tool is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the `uei` parameter. It does this thoroughly: specifies the format ('12-character Unique Entity ID'), lists valid sources (search_companies, search_entities, search_partners, or any other tool's `uei` field), and implies the value is a string. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 ('Get'), a precise deliverable ('7-signal vendor risk report'), and a target ('one UEI'). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool check_exclusion, distinguishing a broader risk read from a binary debarment check, so the agent can easily tell them apart.

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'screening facts for teaming or subcontracting due diligence, before you commit to a partner.' It also names the alternative tool (check_exclusion) and explains the distinction, making routing unambiguous.

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