supply_chain_avl_qualify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies state (e.g., updates records) or is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements or rate limits. The warning only flags components for review.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads purpose and includes an important note. No fluff, though could be improved with slightly more structure (e.g., separators).

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description covers the tool's action and a warning. It omits details about return values or how the output schema works, but the presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter already described as 'Path to BOM file (.csv or .json).' The description restates uploading a BOM file but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it checks components against AVL rules and scores counterfeit risk, with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('components against AVL rules'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'supply_chain_obsolescence_check' by focusing on AVL and counterfeit risk.

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 use before procurement via the warning 'Review flagged components before proceeding with procurement.' It mentions it's 'Station 2,' suggesting a workflow context, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools.

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