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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well: it openly states this is a decision framework, not a real-time fee calculator (managing expectations about precision), and it enumerates the output contract (FBA/FBM scores + recommendation + trade-off reasons + applicable scenarios). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema, though it does not discuss edge cases or any prerequisites.

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?

Well-structured: purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact one-line-per-parameter list, ending with a single return summary. Every line earns its place. It is necessarily long because it carries all parameter semantics at 0% schema coverage, but the formatting keeps it scannable and parceled.

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 9-parameter decision tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the output contract at a high level. Since an output schema exists, the lack of deep detail on return-value formatting is acceptable. The primary gap is the absence of usage guidance versus siblings and any mention of scoring methodology or indeterminate-output edge cases, but overall it is well-rounded for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. All 9 parameters are documented with units, business meaning, and rationale: unit_weight_lb in pounds, is_heavy flagged as '>20 lb, FBA fees jump by weight bracket', margin_pct explained as gross margin '% to judge ability to absorb FBA fees', prime_sensitive tied to standard/homogeneous products, and lead_time_days linked to FBM self-delivery competitiveness. This adds far more than the bare type/default schema.

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 first line states a specific resource (FBA vs FBM) and a precise purpose: multi-dimensional scoring + recommendation + applicable scenarios + cost trade-offs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it is a decision framework and explicitly '不做实时费率' (not real-time rates), which sets it apart from inventory audit and safety-stock planning tools.

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 purpose implies the usage context (choose between FBA and FBM fulfillment), and the '不做实时费率' parenthetical hints at one exclusion. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it vs the sibling tools (inventory_health_audit, safety_stock_reorder_plan), no 'use when...' phrasing, and no explicit alternatives mentioned. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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