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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that it returns only compatibility, is inferred, never reads withheld capabilities, and explicitly lists what it does not establish, providing clear behavioral expectations.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second clarifies scope and limitations, and the third directs to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides complete context: it explains the return type, limitations, and alternative tool. It effectively covers the behavioral and usage semantics needed for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (limit, businessId, includeHistory) with descriptive text. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and clearly identifies both resources: published supply categories and UNSPSC categories official buyers requested. It explicitly states the output is category compatibility only, classed as inferred_compatibility, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_procurement_activity.

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?

Provides explicit alternative guidance: 'Use inspect_procurement_activity for the buyer-side observations themselves.' Also clarifies when not to use this tool by stating it establishes no qualification, eligibility, supplier relationship, competitiveness, or likelihood of award, effectively setting exclusion conditions.

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