Estimate Sourcing Cost

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it clarifies that estimates are based on database averages (not binding), mentions accuracy improvements with fabric_id, and describes the return structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with clear sections (purpose, use cases, workflow, returns, constraints, notes). Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. It efficiently covers multiple aspects in a compact format.

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 (cost estimation with multiple inputs), the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, usage guidelines, workflow integration, return values, constraints, and accuracy notes. With no output schema, the description effectively explains the return structure, and annotations cover safety aspects, making it complete for agent use.

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 all parameters well. The description adds some context by mentioning 'fabric price' and 'supplier pricing' as inputs, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline 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 with specific verbs ('estimate sourcing cost') and resources ('product based on fabric price, supplier pricing, and order quantity'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_fabrics' or 'get_fabric_detail' by focusing on cost estimation rather than data retrieval or analysis.

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 'USE WHEN' section provides explicit scenarios for when to use this tool (e.g., user asks for cost estimates, budgeting needs, or specific Chinese phrases). It also includes guidance on when to use alternatives ('Optionally use search_fabrics first') and clarifies constraints ('NOT binding quotes'), making it highly actionable.

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