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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conditional 'when Shopify is connected' for inventory data, which is useful context about data availability. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any edge cases beyond the zero-sales definition.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. The main action ('Identify products with zero sales') is stated immediately, and the conditional inventory clause is appended naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only report with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the core logic (zero sales window) and the conditional inventory availability. The output schema covers the return structure, and annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter (timeframe), and the schema description covers it fully with an enum and default. The description mentions 'window' but adds no extra syntax or formatting details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description correctly relies on the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 tool's function: identifying products with zero sales in a window and optionally their on-hand inventory. It uses a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('products'), and the 'dead stock report' title aligns with the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like run_stock_velocity or run_inventory_valuation, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for preferring it over run_stock_velocity, get_bottom_products, or other reporting tools. The only implicit signal is the tool name and title, which is insufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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