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 specifies the data source ('US Customs and Border Protection'), update frequency ('Updated every 30 minutes'), coverage scope ('Covers all major commercial crossings'), and return data structure ('current delay in minutes for commercial vehicles, number of lanes open, and port status'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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 states the core functionality and return values, the second adds context about data source, coverage, and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 moderate complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, data characteristics, and use cases. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the exact return format (e.g., structured data fields), though it mentions key return elements. The absence of annotations means the description adequately covers behavioral aspects.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist and the schema coverage is complete.

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 commercial border crossing wait times') and resources ('US-Mexico and US-Canada ports of entry'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on border crossing delays rather than commodities, air cargo, rail, ports, or other supply chain metrics mentioned in the sibling list.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Used by logistics companies, freight brokers, and trucking operations to route cross-border shipments through the fastest crossing points'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings. The context implies it's for real-time border crossing data, which differentiates it from tools like 'get_port_congestion_trends' or 'get_rail_freight_status'.

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