UNLAV Supplier Quote Compare

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations do not carry: the cost model ('0.05 USDC on Base per report') and the boundary conditions (no FX, no tax inference, no supplier verification), which an agent needs before invoking a paid operation.

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?

Three short sentences, fully front-loaded: capability first, boundary conditions second, cost last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value burden; it says rankings and ties are reported but does not describe the response shape, ordering guarantee, or how ties are represented. For a paid, no-output-schema tool the coverage is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the result format.

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% and there are three required nested parameters (currency, requirements, quotes) that are entirely undocumented. The description offers only indirect hints — 'same complete order' and 'shipping' gesture at the requirements/quotes relationship — but never explains currency-matching rules, quantity semantics, or decimal-string formats.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('rank supplier quotes'), the scope ('for the same complete order'), and the method ('exact decimal arithmetic and shipping'). Siblings (demo, ping, service_info) are unrelated utilities, so no further differentiation is needed — an agent can identify this instantly.

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?

Explicit exclusions are given: incomplete quotes are dropped, and no FX, tax inference or supplier verification is performed, which tells the agent when this tool is inapplicable. It does not name an alternative tool or state prerequisites (e.g. quotes must share the order's currency), so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the example is fixed, synthetic, and accepts no buyer data or payment, which is beyond the annotation. It does not describe return format or rate limits, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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 short sentences with no wasted words, and the key qualifiers ('free', 'fixed synthetic', 'no buyer data/payment') are front-loaded. However, the sentences prioritize constraints over a clear statement of purpose, which slightly weakens structure.

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-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides minimal context: it indicates the tool returns a fixed synthetic example and imposes input restrictions. It does not say what the example contains or what calling the tool yields, leaving the agent to infer the return value.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously).

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 says 'Free fixed synthetic example' but does not state a specific verb or resource; it largely restates the name 'demo' (example) with modifiers. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ping or service_info in terms of what action it performs.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. The clause 'No buyer data or payment accepted' is a restriction on input, but it does not say when to choose this tool over reconcile_csv_tables or service_info.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is free, which is mild cost context an agent could use for call-budget decisions, but it says nothing about latency, side effects, or what a successful response looks like.

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 words, front-loaded, zero waste. It is on the terse side bordering on under-specified, but nothing in the sentence can be trimmed and the key claim leads.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly viable, but it never states what a health check returns (status text, liveness boolean, latency) or what a failure signals. One extra clause would have made it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-input invocation, and there is nothing further it could meaningfully document.

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 phrase 'health check' gestures at the tool's role without naming what is being checked (the server, the connection, a dependency), and 'Free' is a cost attribute rather than a purpose. It is not a pure restatement of the name 'ping', so it clears the tautology bar, but an agent cannot tell from this alone how it differs from 'service_info' or 'demo'.

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?

No indication of when to call this instead of the siblings 'demo', 'service_info', or 'reconcile_csv_tables'. The word 'Free' hints it is cheap enough to call casually, but that is inference, not guidance, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description only needs to add context. It lists returned content categories but says nothing about caching, freshness, rate limits, or that no arguments are required. Marginal value over the annotation.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the returned content front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but it wastes no space.

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?

With no output schema, the description must hint at return contents, and it does list four categories. But those categories are vague ("schemas" of what, price in what form?) and no usage context is supplied, so the picture is only partially complete for a zero-arg read 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 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 names the resource (service info) and enumerates what it returns: price, schemas, input limits, privacy information. However, it uses a fragment with no verb ("Free price, schemas...") so it never states the action, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like ping or demo. Purpose is inferable but not crisply stated.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus ping, demo, or reconcile_csv_tables, and no mention of prerequisites or timing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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