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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'inspect' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or error behavior is provided. It is minimally transparent.

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 that starts with the action verb and includes a relevant condition. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains 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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns, but it only says 'inspect' without detailing the structure or content of the response. The single parameter is also not explained, leaving some context missing for a complete invocation.

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 description does not explain the purpose or format of the request_id parameter, nor does it connect the parameter to the campaign being inspected. Since the schema also lacks a description, the parameter semantics are largely undocumented.

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 'inspect' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'demand-triggered capability formation campaign'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like me_get_supply_forecast or me_get_supply_plan, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'when verified supply is short' provides a clear contextual trigger for using this tool. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the condition gives enough guidance to know when this tool is appropriate.

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