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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe to call.

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 concise sentence listing the specific data elements returned. It contains no filler or redundant wording.

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 description is minimal and lacks essential context: no parameter explanations, no output schema, no usage guidance, and no behavioral details. Given the large sibling toolset, this incomplete description would likely leave an agent uncertain about how and 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?

Neither 'limit' nor 'capability_code' is described in the schema or in the description. The default value of 500 for limit hints at pagination, but this is not stated, and capability_code's role is entirely unexplained.

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 'Inspect' as the verb and identifies the specific resource: forecast demand, supply, fill rate, shortage probability, and recommended compensation. This is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like supply plan or supply quotes, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as get_supply_plan or get_supply_formation. The description only states what the tool inspects, not the conditions under which it should be chosen.

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