supplier_scorecard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data content and scope (one supplier), but it does not state that the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or what the response format looks like. The listed metrics add some transparency beyond the schema, but key operational traits remain implicit.

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 a single dense sentence that lists the metrics with zero filler. The content is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple aggregation tool, though it would benefit from a leading verb to clarify the action.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description partially covers what data is returned by naming the metrics. However, it omits the required parameter's name and format, does not clarify read-only behavior, and gives no sense of response structure, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole required parameter. It only says 'for one supplier,' implying scoping by supplier_id without naming the parameter, explaining its format, or noting that it is required. This falls short of compensating for the missing schema documentation.

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 specifies the resource (a supplier scorecard) and enumerates the exact metrics returned for one supplier, which is more specific than a restatement of the name. However, it lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'compute' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as purchase_orders or supply_risks.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like supply_risks or purchase_orders. Usage is only implied by the metric list, leaving the agent to infer that this is a consolidated supplier performance view.

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