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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: alert_type is derived as OUT_OF_STOCK, LOW_STOCK, or AGED_STOCK when Amazon's restock report has no alert, and alerts_only=true filters to flagged SKUs. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The output categories are front-loaded, and the alert derivation/alerts_only nuance is appended efficiently without repeating title or schema 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?

For a read-only report tool, the description covers the major output categories, the derived alert_type, and the alerts_only filter. Pagination behavior is already provided in the schema's offset description. Missing asin/limit semantics and explicit sibling differentiation are the only notable gaps.

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?

The description adds real meaning for alerts_only by explaining it returns only flagged SKUs, and offset and seller_connection already have schema descriptions. However, asin and limit have no schema descriptions and are not addressed in the description, so with only 40% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the gaps.

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 identifies the resource (FBA/AWD inventory health) and the core output categories: fulfillable/inbound/reserved units, aged inventory, restock recommendations, and AWD pool per SKU. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb and doesn't position itself against sibling report tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 conveys what the tool returns and explains the alerts_only flag, so an agent can infer its use for inventory/replenishment review. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related sibling tools like forecast_reorder_report or forecast_report, and no exclusions are given.

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