apm_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — no execution, no payment, i.e. side-effect-free — which is genuinely useful. But it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether the preview is cached or live, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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?

A single tight sentence with the value proposition front-loaded ('Free taster') and the safety guarantee trailing. Every clause earns its place, no filler.

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 2-required-param tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (top-3 suppliers plus customer price) and that nothing executes. That covers the essential loop; only edge cases like invalid task categories are unaddressed.

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 both 'task' and 'input' are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that a task is involved and adds no format, example, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.

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?

States a specific action (compare top-3 suppliers APM would buy from) with a clear output (customer price) and scoping caveat (free taster, no execution). It is distinguishable from apm_quote by the preview/no-execution framing, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Free taster' plus 'no execution, no payment' implies this is a dry-run to try before committing, which is usable guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over apm_quote or what the preconditions are, leaving the agent to infer the sequencing.

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