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 adds useful context about data sources (e.g., Surface Transportation Board) and the tool's role in early warning systems, but does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and metrics, then adding data sources and contextual value. It uses two sentences efficiently, though the second sentence is slightly verbose; every sentence adds meaningful information without waste.

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 (monitoring rail performance with multiple metrics) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers what data is retrieved and its purpose, but lacks details on return format, data freshness, or limitations, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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 does not mention parameters, which is appropriate, but it could have noted the lack of inputs more explicitly. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.

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') and resources ('US freight rail performance metrics'), listing detailed metrics like average train speed and terminal dwell time. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing exclusively on rail freight data, unlike tools for air cargo, ports, or economic indicators.

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 usage ('provides early warning of freight bottlenecks across the US rail network'), indicating it's for monitoring rail performance and supply chain impacts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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