get_supplier_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as returning information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description adds some context about what information is returned (destinations and experience types) but lacks detailed behavioral traits. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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, front-loaded with the purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding clear value, with zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which covers the essential context. However, it could benefit from more detail on return values or behavioral aspects, but for a read-only info tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it naturally compensates by focusing on usage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description provides value without parameter details.

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's purpose: 'Returns information about the supplier network and available inventory.' It specifies both the resource ('supplier network and available inventory') and the action ('returns information'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings beyond mentioning one alternative. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to understand what destinations and experience types are available before calling search_slots.' It clearly states when to use this tool (before search_slots) and names a specific alternative (search_slots), which meets the criteria for a 5.

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