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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure: for each pillar, the tool returns a score, trend direction, and specific data points driving the reading. It also lists what each pillar covers. This gives a clear picture of behavior without revealing any side effects (which are unlikely for a read-only reporting tool). However, it does not mention data recency, update frequency, or any limitations beyond the listed categories.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the main purpose; the second details the pillars and their components; the third explains the value and target user. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the categories, the subcomponents within each, and the per-pillar output (score, trend, driving data points). This is complete for a reporting tool, as there are no side effects, prerequisites, or complex parameter interactions to disclose. The only slight gap is the acronym 'GDI' not being expanded, but it is used as a known term in the context of sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The rule sets a baseline of 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist, and it doesn't need to. The absence of params is consistent with a tool that returns a comprehensive breakdown without requiring inputs.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed breakdown') and resource ('supply chain disruption risk by category'). It explicitly enumerates the GDI pillars (Transportation, Energy, Materials, Macro) and their subcomponents, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual pillars (e.g., get_energy_breakdown, get_port_congestion_trends).

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 a clear use case: 'Essential for supply chain managers who need to diagnose which risk category is elevated and why.' This implies when to use the tool (when a high-level diagnosis is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. Given the sibling tools are granular, this tool's role as an aggregate breakdown is evident, but the description stops short of direct comparisons.

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