sourcing_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it compares origins on total landed cost, lead time, and risk using modeled indices. It also explicitly states the limitations: 'cost indices, risk scores and lead adders are MODELED, product-specific and directional'. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and inputs but is quite lengthy. Every sentence adds value, covering inputs, process, outputs, and caveats. However, slightly trimming redundant phrases could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 complexity of the tool (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers required inputs, optional parameters, processing logic, and outputs (recommended origin and dual-source mix). It also notes limitations and pricing, fully preparing the agent for 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains that the 'fob_value' serves as a baseline for scaling other origins' costs, and that 'dest_port' determines duty/FTA treatment. This context enhances understanding of how parameters interact.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as quantifying the strategic CHINA+1/NEARSHORING decision. It uses specific verbs like 'compares' and 'names the recommended origin', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_landed_cost' which likely provide only cost data.

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 tells the user when to use the tool: 'Give the SAME product (or HS code) + a destination market + the China-equivalent FOB cost'. It also advises that the results are modeled and directional, recommending follow-up with factory quotes and rules-of-origin checks, which is explicit usage guidance.

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