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

With no annotations, the description carries a significant burden and explains the score range (0-100), directionality (higher = greater risk), and data sources (200+ variables including ports, commodities, border delays, manufacturing, and Fed indicators). It does not mention potential limitations like data latency or update frequency, which would add further transparency.

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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Assess current global supply chain disruption risk. Returns the GDI...'). Each sentence adds meaningful detail (score scale, data sources, audience), though it could be slightly more concise by trimming the user list.

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 zero-parameter tool returning a summary index, the description is highly complete: it explains what the tool does, how to interpret the score, what data underpins it, and who it is for. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear explanation of the GDI scale and components.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed; the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 specific verbs ('assess', 'returns') and clearly identifies the Global Disruption Index (GDI) as the resource, explaining its scale and composite pillars. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrow metrics like port congestion or commodity prices.

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 context by listing target users and use cases ('procurement teams, logistics planners... for real-time supply chain visibility and risk monitoring'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this aggregate tool over the more specific sibling tools or when not to use it, so exclusions are missing.

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