analyze_bom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects). It does not contradict the annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, 14-word sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the analysis categories without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is complex with a nested request object and many boolean options, but the schema provides detailed parameter information. The description clearly states the tool's purpose and the analysis dimensions, offering a sense of expected output. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values or error conditions, and it lacks guidance on optional filters. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate but does not. While the schema property names (e.g., exclude_tariff, maximum_lead_weeks) are somewhat self-descriptive, the description adds little meaning to the nested request structure or specific parameters. It only lists analysis dimensions, which loosely map to some parameters but without explicit clarification.

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 a specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'BOM', and clearly lists the analysis dimensions (cost, stock, lifecycle, lead time, compliance, PCNs, alternate packaging, substitutes). This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on individual products or specific aspects, making it clear that this is a comprehensive BOM analysis tool.

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 implies usage for BOM-level multi-faceted analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_product_details, audit_lifecycle, or get_substitutions. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the name and the listed dimensions.

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