receive_goods

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses write operations, external push to FastBound, and the consequential flag. Good behavioral transparency, though some details like error handling missing.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with main action, then payload structure, then warning. No fluff, every sentence provides value.

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?

Covers core behavior and payload structure well. Lacks output schema and some edge cases (e.g., behavior when confirm=false), but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Description adds meaning by detailing payload structure (supplier, source, items with subfields) beyond schema's empty 'additionalProperties'. Compensates for 0% schema coverage with explicit object outline.

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?

Description clearly states it creates and submits a Purchase Receipt and handles firearms with FFL acquisitions and FastBound pushes. Specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like add_stock or set_stock.

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?

Implies consequential nature with 'confirm=true', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like add_stock. Lacks clear usage context.

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