supply_chain_peers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but does not mention possible failure modes, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response object looks like. It is not contradictory but is severely under-specified for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence that clearly leads with the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler. It is optimally sized for its simplicity.

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 sibling differentiation, the description leaves unclear what the response contains (e.g., list of tickers, company names) and does not explain how 'competitors' is defined. Given the presence of similar supply chain tools, an agent would struggle to predict the result or choose the right tool without additional context.

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 already describes 'ticker' as 'Stock ticker' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints to the parameter, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('supply chain competitors') for a company via ticker. It is distinct from the sibling tools 'supply_chain_customers' and 'supply_chain_suppliers' by meaning, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related supply_chain_customers or supply_chain_suppliers. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between them.

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