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. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it generates a weekly report with specific content sections (GDI score, disruption events, manufacturing output, etc.), is designed for executive use, and serves weekly review purposes. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness or access requirements.

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 with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second details content, the third states the use case, and the fourth specifies the audience. There's no redundant 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 complexity (comprehensive report generation) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns (specific content sections). However, it doesn't detail the format (e.g., structured JSON vs. narrative text) or potential limitations, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to understand the full context.

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. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4. It focuses on the tool's output content instead, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Comprehensive weekly supply chain situation report combining all SupplyMaven data sources into an executive-level brief.' It specifies the verb ('combining'), resource ('all SupplyMaven data sources'), and distinguishes from siblings by being comprehensive rather than focused on specific aspects like commodity prices or port congestion.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Designed to answer 'what happened this week in supply chains?' in a single call' and 'Used by executives, procurement leaders, and supply chain managers for weekly risk reviews and stakeholder briefings.' It implicitly suggests alternatives by highlighting its comprehensive nature versus sibling tools that focus on specific data sources.

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