supply_chain_customers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not describe the return format, pagination, error behavior, or any other nuances. The agent lacks critical information about what happens when called.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse. The brevity is appropriate for a tool with only one parameter.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the lack of an output schema combined with no annotations means the description must explain the return value. It does not mention what kind of data is returned (e.g., list of customer identifiers, company names) or any additional context. An agent calling this tool would have to guess the response structure, making it incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (ticker), which is already described as 'Stock ticker'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter—it only implies that the ticker identifies the company. Since the schema is sufficient, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get supply chain customers for a company'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like supply_chain_suppliers and supply_chain_peers by explicitly naming the customer relationship. An agent can immediately understand the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention supply_chain_suppliers or supply_chain_peers, nor any conditions that would favor one over the other. The differentiation is only implicit through the names, which is insufficient.

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