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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one useful behavioral signal — that results span time and cover both levels and movements (i.e., a time series, not a snapshot) — but says nothing about aggregation granularity, grouping, or result size.

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?

Six words with zero filler, so nothing is wasted — but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline. There is no front-loaded verb or scope statement to anchor the agent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what an 'overview' actually returns — grouping by SKU, category or project, units, trend window granularity — and it does not. For an aggregate reporting tool called with an optional 1-365 day window, the agent cannot predict the shape or scale of the response.

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 description coverage is 100%: 'days' documents the lookback with a default of 30, and 'project_id' documents the workspace and where to obtain it. The description contributes no additional meaning about either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 phrase 'Stock levels and movements over time' names the resource (inventory) and hints that this is an aggregate, time-based view rather than a per-item lookup. But it has no verb and never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_inventory_item or list_inventory, leaving the agent to infer that this is the summary variant.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_inventory_item or list_inventory, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess that this is the dashboard-style rollup rather than a detailed listing.

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