Compare Suppliers

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world operations, but the description details constraints ('Max 10 supplier IDs per call'), error handling ('Missing IDs are silently skipped'), and return format ('{ count, data: [full supplier profiles with all fields] }'), enhancing the agent's understanding of tool behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, using bullet points and clear sections (e.g., USE WHEN, PREREQUISITE, WORKFLOW, RETURNS, ERRORS, CONSTRAINT, DIFFERENCE). Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains the purpose, usage, prerequisites, workflow, return format, error handling, constraints, and differentiation from sibling tools. This compensates for the missing output schema and ensures the agent has sufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'supplier_ids' fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'supplier_ids from search_suppliers' and the max limit of 10, but does not add significant semantic details beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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: 'Compare multiple suppliers side by side on all dimensions.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('suppliers'), and scope ('multiple', 'side by side', 'all dimensions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_supplier_detail, which returns a single supplier with verified_dimensions breakdown.

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 guidelines: it lists example user queries (e.g., 'compare these 3 factories'), specifies prerequisites ('MUST have valid supplier_ids from search_suppliers'), outlines the workflow ('search_suppliers → collect supplier_ids → compare_suppliers'), and distinguishes when to use this tool vs. alternatives ('Use this instead of calling get_supplier_detail in a loop').

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