distributor_check_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool 'changes nothing' (non-mutating), that it performs a live external HTTP call to RSR, and that it is a real-time re-confirmation rather than a cached browse. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior, then adds the important caveats about side effects and appropriate usage. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, parameter format, mutability, network behavior, and usage boundaries. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly for its intended role.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the main required parameter as '[{sku, qty}, …]', which goes beyond the bare schema. However, the optional 'distributor' parameter is not explained, leaving some ambiguity about how distributor selection works.

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 resource: 'LIVE quantity/price re-confirm straight from the distributor'. It also distinguishes itself from distributor_quote by noting it reaches RSR over HTTP, so an agent can immediately differentiate it from a closely named sibling.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('second-check before confirming an order') and when not to ('not to browse'). It also contrasts with distributor_quote, giving the agent a concrete alternative and the key difference between them.

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