aggregate_procurement_demand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly implies a read-only analytical operation through verbs like aggregate, group, cross-reference, and compute, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or that this is a snapshot view. This leaves some room for interpretation for a cautious agent.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with no redundant detail. The first sentence names the action and sources; the second explains the computation and practical purpose. Every clause earns its place, and no filler is present.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies inputs, logic, and the resulting shortfall metric. It does not enumerate the exact return fields, but those are easy to infer from the described grouping and cross-referencing logic.

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%, and the sole parameter topN is already well documented in the schema with its default and sort behavior. The description adds no extra parameter context, but none is really needed, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (aggregate) and resource (open procurement demand from open sales orders and released/planned production orders). It clearly describes the grouping, cross-referencing, and net-shortfall calculation, which sharply differentiates it from sibling planning tools like calc_reorder_point or get_open_orders.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need an aggregated picture of procurement demand and net shortfall for all open sales and production orders. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusisons, but the context is concrete enough to guide an agent toward it and away from pure sales or stock reporting tools.

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