distributor_precheck_fds

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Reaches RSR over HTTP; changes nothing,' which discloses the network call and the read-only nature. This is strong behavioral context beyond the tool's name and purpose. It does not enumerate side effects or error conditions, but for a simple precheck operation this is sufficient to set expectations.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the second provides behavioral transparency. Every word earns its place. The structure is ideal for a tool definition.

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 single-parameter precheck tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the reason, and the behavior. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the question 'whether ... accepts' implies a yes/no answer. The only missing piece is a clear definition of the parameter, which is already penalized in parameter_semantics. Overall, it is nearly complete for its simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameter. It says 'the transfer dealer named on this FDS order,' suggesting the input identifies the order or dealer, but it never explicitly states what 'do_name' means (e.g., is it the distributor order number, the dealer name, or the FDS order ID?). The description implies context but leaves the parameter mapping ambiguous, forcing the agent to guess.

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 ('Ask the distributor'), the target ('the transfer dealer named on this FDS order'), and the specific question ('accepts drop-shipped firearms'). It also gives the operational purpose ('the cheapest way to avoid an FDS Hold'), which distinguishes it from other distributor tools like distributor_quote or distributor_check_availability. Though it doesn't name a sibling, the purpose is 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?

The description says 'the cheapest way to avoid an FDS Hold,' implying this is the preferred tool over alternatives when that is the goal. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. Since it gives a specific use-case hint, it is above baseline but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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