audit_supply_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the audit produces bottleneck identification and LCSC-cross-referenced drop-in mappings, but says nothing about cost, latency, or the shape of the returned findings.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before attaching qualifiers. The parenthetical and trailing clause make it somewhat dense but nothing is redundant 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?

With one high-coverage parameter but a nested object and no output schema, the description carries real weight, and it does describe the analytical outputs (bottlenecks, second-source mapping with cross-references). It stops short of describing the report structure an agent would receive back.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the modules argument and its provenance. The description adds no format or structure detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct here.

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 verb (Audit) and a clearly bounded resource (BOM component multi-sourcing resilience), then narrows scope with single-source bottlenecks and pin-compatible second-source mapping. It is easy to separate from siblings like calculate_bom_cost or synthesize_circuit, though it never names a 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?

The ISO 9001 audit framing and the schema note that modules come from synthesize_circuit output imply the workflow position, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The agent can infer context but is given no routing rule.

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