classify_demand_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The description fails to compensate for the missing annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and classification details. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating the classification categories from the model tier).

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 covers the core purpose and classification categories, but it does not explain what the 'model tier it routes to' means or how the classification is determined. The presence of an output schema might compensate, but the description itself leaves some ambiguity for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 schema covers the single parameter unique_id with 100% coverage, including an example and a reference to list_skus. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'classify', the resource 'SKU's demand pattern', and lists the specific classification categories (Syntetos-Boylan: smooth/erratic/intermittent/lumpy/cold_start) plus the model tier routing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_skus, forecast_series, etc.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to classify a SKU's demand pattern), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The parameter description indirectly references list_skus as a prerequisite, but the main description lacks explicit usage guidance.

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