Record high-intent demand for a capability an agent wants fulfilled. Supplier contact and spending are not enabled yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| currency | No | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| authority | No | get_quotes | |
| maxBudget | No | ||
| telemetry | No | aggregate_only | |
| categoryHint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: that supplier contact and spending are not enabled yet, which implies the tool only records a demand without executing purchases. However, it does not mention whether the operation is a create/update, idempotency, or other side effects, 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add the key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain required parameters, how authority levels affect behavior, or what the result of submission looks like. The single limitation note is valuable but insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent receives no semantic guidance for the 8 parameters. The description only conveys the overall purpose, not what 'task', 'authority', 'maxBudget', etc. mean or how they should be used.
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 the specific verb 'Record' with the resource 'high-intent demand', clearly stating the tool's function. It also adds a distinguishing constraint ('Supplier contact and spending are not enabled yet') that separates it from sibling tools like report_outcome and resolve.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies a high-intent demand scenario but never mentions report_outcome or resolve, nor any exclusion criteria. The only hint is the 'not enabled yet' limitation, which is not a usage directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct phase of the capability lifecycle: submit_mandate captures demand, resolve fulfills it, and report_outcome provides feedback. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
The names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: submit_mandate, report_outcome, and resolve. Though 'resolve' is a bare verb, it is the core action and fits the established style.
Three tools is an appropriate, minimal set for the server's purpose—covering the complete flow of demand, resolution, and feedback without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The lifecycle is logically complete: submit a mandate, resolve it, and report the outcome. Minor gaps include lack of retrieval or listing for mandates/outcomes, but these are not critical given the server's telemetry-focused design.