supplier_compare_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses deterministic behavior, applies hard mismatch gates, records structured evidence, and limits output to 5 best non-rejected candidates. It stops short of explaining side effects like whether 'records structured evidence' implies persistent storage or whether any state is modified.

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 well-structured with clear sections: overall purpose, behavior details, argument explanation, and a usage directive. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its deterministic nature, its output (VisualReviewBundle), and when to use it. It does not explain what 'hard mismatch gates' entail, but this is not required for basic invocation.

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 compensate. The only parameter 'asin' is described as 'Amazon ASIN to compare against supplier candidates', which adds minimal context beyond the schema's field title. For an obvious single-string ASIN, this is adequate but not detailed; no format or examples are given.

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 a specific action: run deterministic comparison between an Amazon product and 1688 candidates. It also mentions the output (VisualReviewBundle) and distinguishes itself from other tools by explicitly noting no LLM/vision APIs are called, which differentiates it from sibling tools like asin_compare.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: After supplier_search returns candidates to evaluate.' This gives a clear workflow position but does not mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, which would have made it a 5.

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