lemonade_buy_supplies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that the response reports whether the purchase was applied and includes updated state, which gives some insight into the transaction outcome. However, it does not disclose cost implications, inventory limits, or failure conditions beyond the response flag, leaving significant behavioral aspects unclear.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetitive content.

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 transactional tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It mentions the response reports success and updated state but omits critical context such as how costs are calculated, whether supplies have inventory limits, or what happens on failure. In the context of the game (evident from sibling tools), more operational detail is expected.

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 only 33%, with only 'pack' having a direct description. The tool description adds 'fixed package sizes' but does not clarify the 'packs' parameter (the quantity multiplier) or the meaning of 'item' beyond the enum. The description provides minimal additional value over the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 action ('Buy') and the resource ('one of three fixed package sizes'), which aligns with the tool name 'buy_supplies'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lemonade_buy_supply_basket' by emphasizing the fixed package sizes, implying a direct purchase of an individual supply item rather than a basket. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lemonade_buy_supply_basket' or other supply-related tools. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, inventory checks, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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