supply_chain_risk_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the output and data sources, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or whether it requires authentication. The real-time nature is noted.

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 clear and front-loaded with the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds valuable detail about pillars and data sources. Could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of output and data sources. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure), which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what the tool returns, which is sufficient. There is no need for further parameter explanation.

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 assesses global supply chain disruption risk and returns the Global Disruption Index. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that focus on specific components, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_gdi_trend_analysis' which covers similar ground.

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 lists intended users (procurement, logistics, etc.) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when it is not appropriate. Given many sibling tools, exclusions or criteria would help.

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