asc_sbp_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the data source (latest SUBSCRIPTION/SUMMARY sales report, gzip TSV), the auth requirement (Finance-role key and the specific config parameters), and error behavior (403 → clear error). It does not state rate limits or caching, but auth and failure handling are the traits an agent most needs to invoke this correctly, and both are covered.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose, then packs auth and error details into compact parentheticals without filler. It is dense and telegraphic but every clause contributes actionable information. A slightly more readable structure would be the only improvement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers purpose, auth, and error handling. The material gap is the two input parameters, which are neither documented in the schema nor the description. For a tool with a real auth dependency and a computed-ratio output, this is adequate but leaves invocation details under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters, and it does not. Although 'latest ... sales report' hints that days_back controls the lookback window and report_date selects a specific report, neither parameter is named or explained, leaving the agent to guess how they interact or which takes precedence.

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 names a specific operation: fetching the latest SUBSCRIPTION/SUMMARY sales report and computing a US proceeds/price ratio to prove Small Business Program status. The verb+resource is concrete, and the ratio thresholds (≈0.85 SBP, ≈0.70 standard) make the intent unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings, but no sibling shares this function, so the gap is minor.

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?

Usage is implied ('Small Business Program proof') rather than stated explicitly as a when-to-use, and no alternatives or when-not conditions are named. It does supply the prerequisite (Finance-role key via asc_finance_key_id + asc_finance_key_filepath + asc_vendor_number), which is real guidance. This lands at implied usage with useful prerequisite context, not a full routing statement.

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