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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return composition (“四维风险 + 综合风险等级 + 行动清单”), the 181-day long-term-storage threshold, and the modeled consequences for hero ASINs. It stops short of explicitly stating that the tool is read-only and does not execute the recommended removal/discount/replenishment actions, though “返回” strongly implies this.

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 high-value purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact bullet list of parameters and a single line for the output. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repeated 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 7-parameter risk-calculation tool with no annotations, the description covers all input semantics, key business rules, and the output shape, while the existing output schema handles formal return-field details. Nothing essential to invoking and interpreting the call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It does so for all seven parameters, including units (“件/天”), business meaning (“当前在库数量”), the 181-day trigger for days_in_storage, USD and optionality for unit_cost, and the behavioral impact of is_hero_asin. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 states a specific task—“库存健康四维审计”—and names the exact dimensions evaluated (断货风险/超储/周转/IPI) plus the concrete output (风险等级 + 行动清单). This clearly identifies what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like safety_stock_reorder_plan or fba_vs_fbm_decision.

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 intended scenario is implied by the first line: use it when an inventory-health audit across the four dimensions is needed. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over fba_vs_fbm_decision or safety_stock_reorder_plan, and no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.

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