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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by describing the returned payload (stock per location, moving-average cost, value) and the freeness of the call, plus the exact-barcode matching nuance. It omits archived-item default behavior and pagination limits.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the filter options. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries usable information.

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 rightly spends words on the returned fields, which is the most valuable part. But for a 6-parameter tool it leaves pagination behavior (limit max 500, offset default) and the `include_archived` flag entirely undescribed, gaps an agent would hit when querying large catalogs or looking for retired SKUs.

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 only 17%, with just the `location` parameter documented in the schema (including the 'Main' default), so the description must compensate. It does clarify `search` (SKU, name, exact barcode) and `low_only` (at or below reorder point), but says nothing about `limit`, `offset`, or `include_archived`, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 resource (items) and what is returned: stock totals and per location, moving-average unit cost, and value. It is a well-scoped listing operation, but it never names or contrasts itself with inventory siblings such as inventory_locations, inventory_history, or inventory_export, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation.

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?

Implicit usage guidance is present: search by SKU/name/exact barcode, filter to a location, or filter to items at or below reorder point. However, it does not state when to prefer this over inventory_report, inventory_export, or inventory_history, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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