assess_bom_sourcing_risk

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a tier gate, but the rendering 'Free: — · Pro: — · Business: — · Enterprise: ✓' is cryptic rather than explicit, and it never states read-only vs mutating behavior, the error mode when the tier is insufficient, or what the confirm_mapping round-trip implies. The presence of a confirm_mapping param hints at a two-phase mapping confirmation, but the description never explains it.

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 lead sentence is tight and front-loaded, which is good. The pricing/upgrade block consumes roughly two-thirds of the text and the em-dash tier line conveys little; it is boilerplate rather than tool guidance.

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?

A sourcing-risk assessment with no annotations, no output schema, and four loosely specified parameters needs far more than one sentence. An agent cannot determine what a result looks like, whether the call is safe to repeat, or how to supply the BOM correctly.

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 25%, with only confirm_mapping documented ('Default: false'). The description adds no meaning for bom, bom_csv, or components — three of four parameters are undocumented in both places, including whether they are mutually exclusive or required in combination. The single clause about parts being unbuyable is only an indirect hint at what the BOM input should contain.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: flag off-the-shelf parts whose sourcing cannot be relied on within a year. That is meaningfully distinct from siblings like assess_load_bearing or propose_sourcing_remediation. It lacks any explicit comparison to those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Nothing says when to call this versus propose_sourcing_remediation, analyze_structural_risks, or the material-lookup tools. There is no guidance on choosing between bom, bom_csv, and components inputs, nor on when confirm_mapping should be set. The only implied usage is the vague 'a design' framing.

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