SupplySlate

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 behavior (explain), the scope (what it does and does not do), and the context (buyer-owned agent). Since this is a non-destructive informational tool, no side effects or permissions need disclosure. This is transparent enough.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Explain what SupplySlate does') and packs additional value (what it doesn't do and when to use it) without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, scope, and usage context. The sibling tool list further clarifies that this is the meta-level explanation tool, and the description provides all needed information for an agent to decide when to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, so it's adequate.

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 a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('SupplySlate'), and further clarifies its scope by mentioning what it does not do. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_connection_guide or get_sourcing_request by positioning itself as the overview/explanation tool.

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 explicitly states when a buyer-owned agent should use it ('when a buyer-owned agent should use it'), providing clear context. It doesn't directly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase implies this is for high-level understanding rather than specific actions, which is sufficient differentiation.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns connection details and is clearly a read-style operation, but it does not address potential auth requirements, privacy implications, or the absence of side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and output ('Return the exact MCP and REST connection details') and includes the audience. Every word earns its place, with no wasted detail.

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?

This is a low-complexity informational tool: one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description adequately conveys what the tool returns and for whom. It could mention the return format, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'client', and the schema already fully describes it with a clear enum and default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource: 'MCP and REST connection details' for SupplySlate. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which focus on sourcing requests and offers rather than connection setup.

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?

It specifies the intended audience ('a buyer, developer, or agent operator') and the context ('needs to connect to SupplySlate'), making the use case clear. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but none of the sibling tools serve the same purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Read', signaling a non-mutating operation, and scopes it to 'authenticated buyer', indicating authorization requirements. It doesn't describe error conditions or response format, but the core safe-read nature is clear.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and concisely states the scope and output. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose, output, and auth scope. However, it lacks explicit parameter mapping and any detail on what 'normalized line items' means, which would be helpful when no output schema is provided.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the request_id parameter or its format. The parameter pattern (^sr_[A-Za-z0-9-]+$) is self-explanatory as an ID, but the description doesn't add semantic meaning beyond that.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), the resource ('sourcing request'), and the data returned ('status and normalized line items'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sourcing_requests (which lists multiple) and submit_sourcing_request (which is a write operation).

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 a single sourcing request, suggesting it's not for listing or submitting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating offers are 'normalized' and enumerating included fields. However, it does not explicitly disclose safety traits (e.g., read-only nature beyond the verb 'retrieve'), auth requirements, or behavior when no offers exist, leaving gaps.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, listing the specific data returned without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states purpose, scope, and content. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of offers) or empty results, but given the simplicity, it is adequate. The lack of annotations is more a transparency concern than a completeness one.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the single parameter. It says 'for one authenticated buyer sourcing request,' which clearly maps request_id to the sourcing request identifier. It doesn't repeat the pattern from the schema, but provides the semantic meaning, sufficiently compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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 retrieves normalized supplier offers for a single sourcing request, listing specific data fields (compatibility, price, stock, lead time, terms, evidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sourcing_request (request details) and list_sourcing_requests (list requests).

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 phrase 'for one authenticated buyer sourcing request' provides clear context that this is for a single request and implies it should be used when supplier offers are needed. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, such as mentioning list_sourcing_requests for multiple requests.

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

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 that the operation is read-only ('list'), notes that categories are 'editable', and highlights the non-exhaustive nature of the list. This is adequate for a simple read tool, though it does not describe return format or potential errors.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the caveat in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no redundant information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete. It states what is listed and the important nuance that the list is not exhaustive. It could optionally mention the format of the response, but that is not critical for a simple listing operation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist.

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+resource ('List the editable supply categories') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sourcing_requests by focusing on categories rather than requests. The additional scope ('currently accepting requests') further clarifies the purpose.

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 when to use this tool: to discover available categories for requests. The sentence 'Agents may still submit a precise request outside this list' provides essential guidance that the list is not exhaustive, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses an authentication requirement (buyer API key) and narrowing scope ('owned by authenticated buyer'), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or explain pagination/limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially fulfills it.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence conveying both the operation and a key prerequisite. Every word is useful.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers purpose and authentication. However, the absence of parameter explanation and output format signal is a minor gap for a listing tool.

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 single 'limit' parameter has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain its meaning (e.g., max count). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb 'List' with resource 'sourcing requests' and scope 'owned by the authenticated buyer' clearly identifies the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_sourcing_request (single item) and submit_sourcing_request (create).

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 clearly implies the use case: retrieving multiple requests for the current buyer. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as get_sourcing_request or mention when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the request is real and must be non-sensitive, requires an API key, and that offers come later (async). However, it does not describe the immediate return format, idempotency behavior (via external_id), or how to check status with related tools.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning—covering the action, realness, non-sensitivity, routing behavior, and auth requirement.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema. The description covers core purpose, async offers, and auth, but omits immediate return value, how to correlate with get_sourcing_request/get_supplier_offers, and important fields like external_id. It is adequate but under-specified for a tool with this 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 only 44%, so the description must compensate, but it adds almost no parameter-specific guidance. It only hints that the request should be non-sensitive, which relates to the items/notes content. Key parameters like category, ship_to_country, items, need_by, external_id are not explained in the description beyond their schema entries.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('sourcing request'), clearly stating it is a real non-sensitive B2B request routed to suppliers. This distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_sourcing_request and get_supplier_offers.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to submit a sourcing request that will be routed to suppliers and yield offers later. It also mentions the prerequisite of a buyer API key. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this over the retrieval siblings.

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