po_from_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it clearly states the tool is read-only, creates nothing, checks every vendor and product against EBMS, returns the exact POST body, and explains duplicate protection via ebms_write refusing duplicate EXTERNALID. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a potentially costly workflow.

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 dense and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and read-only safety. There is minor redundancy between 'read-only' and 'It creates nothing,' but each clause still contributes useful constraints, so it remains efficient.

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 a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essential context: input source, approval precondition, internal checks, output shape (one draft per vendor with a POST body), and the confirmation guardrail. It doesn't spell out the exact draft data structure or error messages, but the agent has enough to use it correctly in the workflow.

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 100%, so the schema already documents csv, path, and company. The description adds useful context that csv is the mrp_plan worksheet and must contain approved BUY rows, but it doesn't add meaningful format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides.

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: turn an approved MRP worksheet CSV into per-vendor purchase-order drafts. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing read-only behavior, its CSV source from mrp_plan, and its relationship to ebms_write for the actual POST.

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?

It explicitly states the precondition: the worksheet must come from mrp_plan with Approve set to Y on BUY rows, and optionally changed Order Qty or Vendor. It also gives workflow guidance: show drafts and get confirmation before writing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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