market_procurement_signal

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the input data sources (basket stress, search momentum, staple prices) and the output signal types, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool category '[Intel]' and key information. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter input and scalar output (one of three values), the description covers the essential functionality. However, it lacks details on signal semantics, edge cases, or examples, which could help an agent use it correctly in varied contexts.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described with example values. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how country or line affect the signal or what each parameter does. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the tool returns a buy_now/monitor/wait signal based on specific metrics, answering the core question 'when should I buy?'. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'signal' make the action unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like market_price_risk by focusing on procurement timing.

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 implies use for purchase timing decisions but provides no explicit comparison to siblings like market_optimize_purchase or market_price_risk. It does not specify when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for related tasks.

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