SupplyMaven API Pro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns real-time data, covers specific airports, and includes disruption details like delays and closures. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, data freshness, or error handling.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and returns, the second specifies coverage and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 tool's complexity (real-time data with multiple metrics) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete—it details return values and use cases. However, it could improve by specifying output format or data update frequency for full contextual coverage.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, establishing a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get real-time air cargo disruption status') and resources ('at major US and international freight hub airports'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_port_congestion_trends' or 'get_rail_freight_status' by focusing exclusively on air cargo disruptions at airports.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Used by air freight forwarders, express carriers, and logistics planners to reroute time-sensitive shipments around airport disruptions'), providing clear context and distinguishing it from alternatives like monitoring commodity prices or border delays.

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