supply_risks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does explain the analysis logic (single sourcing, stock vs. lead time, overdue POs, unreliable suppliers) and that reasons are returned, which is real behavioral value, but it never states permissions, whether results are cached/live, or cost of a full-portfolio sweep.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The empty-product hint would read better attached to the parameter it concerns rather than trailing as a separate sentence, but the text is efficient.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers what it computes and roughly what comes back ('rank parts ... with the reasons'). The ranking method and the meaning of 'limit' remain unstated, which is the main residual gap.

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. It does explain the non-obvious null default for 'product' ('leave empty to check every part'), but says nothing about 'limit' — whether it caps parts returned, reasons per part, or both.

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 names a specific verb and object ('rank parts by supply risk') and then enumerates the four risk reasons the ranking uses, which tells an agent exactly what this tool computes. It does not, however, name any sibling or state how it differs from supplier_scorecard or simulate_delay, which also touch supply-risk territory.

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 only guidance is 'Leave product empty to check every part,' which covers one calling pattern but not when to prefer this tool over search_parts or supplier_scorecard. Usage is implied rather than stated, with no exclusions.

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