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 (scores, trends, data points) and its purpose, but lacks details on potential limitations, error handling, or data freshness. It adds some context about the output structure but does not fully cover behavioral traits like performance or constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core function and immediately detailing the pillars and their components. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, and it efficiently conveys essential information in a structured manner.

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 (detailed breakdown across multiple pillars) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return values (scores, trends, data points) and purpose. However, it could be more complete by specifying output format or data recency, though it adequately covers the tool's scope and utility.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's function and output without redundant parameter information.

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 detailed breakdown') and resources ('supply chain disruption risk by category'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on GDI pillar analysis rather than specific metrics like commodity prices or port congestion. It explicitly lists the four pillars and their components, making the scope unambiguous.

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 ('Essential for supply chain managers who need to diagnose which risk category is elevated and why'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for diagnostic purposes without detailing exclusions.

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