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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (trend analysis, direction, trajectory, historical baselines, acceleration flags, critical thresholds) and its practical applications, but it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds useful context but has gaps in behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get port congestion trend analysis') and efficiently uses every sentence to add value, such as differentiating from current congestion, listing return types, answering specific questions, and stating user roles. There is no wasted text, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (trend analysis with multiple return aspects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does and its value. However, it could be more complete by detailing the output format or examples, as the absence of an output schema leaves some ambiguity about the return structure.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's output and usage without redundant details about inputs.

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', 'returns', 'identifies', 'flags') and resources ('port congestion trend analysis'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'port_congestion_monitor' by emphasizing trend analysis over current status monitoring. It explicitly answers 'Which ports are getting worse and how fast?' which provides a distinct use case.

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 planners to reroute shipments before congestion peaks, and by importers to anticipate lead time extensions'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'port_congestion_monitor' for current congestion data. The implied usage is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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