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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the input range (1-5 per dimension), the transformation (weighted calculation), and the output structure (total score, rating, action suggestions). It does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior or computation details like weights, but the core behavior is transparent for a scoring tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential input-output contract, then follows with a clean enumeration of the six dimensions. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with six required integer parameters and a rich input schema, the description covers the purpose, input dimensions, scoring range, and output categories. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be detailed here. The only notable gap is explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but the overall calling context is sufficiently complete.

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%, and each parameter in the input schema already has a detailed Chinese description. The tool description lists the six dimensions and their names but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: input six dimension scores from 1-5 and output a weighted total, red-yellow-green rating, and action recommendations. This specific verb-resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like aql_sampling_plan and factory_audit_checklist, which serve different quality workflows.

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 implies this tool is for supplier evaluation scoring, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus the sibling tools or when not to use it. The context is clear enough from the six named dimensions, but there is no direct routing guidance or exclusion criteria.

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