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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('as the record states it') but omits what the tool returns, error handling (e.g., missing record), permissions, or side effects. It does not state whether it modifies anything or if it is safe to call repeatedly. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a clarifying constraint. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without harming brevity. It earns a high score for efficiency, but a small deduction because the parameter explanation is missing.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide sufficient context to call it correctly. It lacks clarity on what record_id means, what the return value looks like, and any error conditions. The description tells what it does but not how to use it effectively, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 only parameter, record_id, has no schema description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not clarify what record_id refers to (e.g., product ID, order ID, or internal record ID). 'As the record states it' implies the ID corresponds to a record, but it does not explain how to obtain it or what type of record is expected. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the parameter name.

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') and a precise object ('the maker's or distributor's trade channel to order a product'), and clarifies it is not a consumer channel. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_record (generic retrieval) and find_producer (likely a different lookup). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, such as get_record or find_producer. The only hint is the negative constraint 'Never a consumer channel,' which implies it is for trade channels but does not explain selection criteria or alternatives. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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