get_exposure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's functionality (identifies dependencies, returns score) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The example hints at a read operation, but explicitness is lacking.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then provides concrete illustration. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context. The example clarifies the output format. However, it could mention any limitations (e.g., only US stocks) or default behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'ticker' parameter, but the description adds meaning by contextualizing it as a company ticker for supply chain analysis. The example 'AAPL' reinforces this. While not exhaustive, it adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 provides 'supply chain exposure and concentration risk analysis', identifies shared suppliers/customers, flags single-source dependencies, and returns an exposure score. The example with ticker 'AAPL' further clarifies the scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_supply_chain or get_competitors.

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 when supply chain risk analysis is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_supply_chain for raw lists, get_competitors for competition). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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