cam_verdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computation inputs, the fixed verdict set, the incomplete-input behavior, and even an output-formatting instruction ('use the exact first line... begins with "CAM verdict:"'), which is genuinely useful. But it omits that the optional 'criteria' object (targetProfit, maxDeliveryDays, maxEstimateAgeDays) also gates the verdict, and never states that this is a pure side-effect-free computation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and verdict domain before moving to inputs and the reporting instruction. Four sentences, each doing work; only the final formatting sentence could arguably be trimmed, though it earns its place by standardizing output.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with a nested criteria object and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core computation and the verdict strings. It stops short of explaining how the optional gate parameters (deliveryDays, estimateDate, stock, criteria overrides) change the outcome, leaving the agent to infer their role from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by grouping the six cost items into a profit-per-order formula and stressing that the return reserve is always counted rather than optional. It does not explain how 'deliveryDays', 'estimateDate', or 'stock' feed the gate criteria, which is the remaining semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Judge whether a product is viable to source and sell') and names the standard used ('CAM verdict standard'). It goes further to enumerate the exact output domain (TEST_CANDIDATE, HOLD, REJECT), so an agent knows precisely what this tool produces.

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 by the purpose and there is one concrete rule ('If any item is missing, no verdict is issued'), which tells the agent the six required inputs must all be supplied. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus doing the arithmetic manually, and no guidance on when the optional criteria gates should be customized.

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