supply_chain_disruption_alerts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are empty, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions free vs paid tier restrictions, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, side effects, or idempotency, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Description is a single, well-structured paragraph that efficiently conveys key information. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must describe return values. It lists categories, severity, stage, and risk score. However, it lacks details like time window, pagination, or sorting, which would improve completeness.

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?

Schema has no parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds context by explaining the categories and structure of the return data, but since there are no parameters, the added value is limited.

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?

Description clearly states tool returns real-time supply chain disruption alerts with listed categories, severity, stage, and risk score. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_disaster_events or get_trade_policy_impacts, leaving some ambiguity about unique scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains what the tool does but does not provide context for when it is appropriate or when other tools should be preferred.

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