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

Adds several traits beyond the annotations: where output lands (file store), that a download link is returned, and a cost of $0.001 per call with no charge on failure. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false (it writes a file). It stops short of noting any retention/permission constraints on the file store.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the output artifact and followed by the mode breakdown and cost note. Every clause carries information, though the colon-list packing makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return shape (CSV file plus link) and its contents, and adds billing behavior for a non-idempotent call. The remaining gap is how the date range interacts with each export mode.

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 67% and the description does add real meaning to the `what` enum by describing what each mode returns. It says nothing about `from`/`to` semantics (e.g. whether they apply to moves, items, or both), leaving the date filters entirely to the schema pattern.

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?

States a specific artifact (a CSV in the file store with a download link) and enumerates the two export variants with their row contents. An agent can tell what it produces, though it never names a sibling (e.g. inventory_report) to distinguish itself from.

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?

Usage is implied by the content descriptions of the two choices (items = quantity/cost/value per item-location; moves = from-to). There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance and no exclusions, so the agent must infer selection.

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