get_inventoryWarehouse stock levels by SKU (available, reserved, incoming, blocked) joined to the master product (name, cost, MRP). Optional free-text search by SKU; returns up to 25 rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (1-25, default 25). | |
| query | No | Free-text SKU search. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the exact stock fields returned, the join to master product, optional search behavior, and the 25-row cap. It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency into the result shape and limit.
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, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, fields, search, and row limit with zero fluff. Every clause adds value and the structure makes it easy 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?
Given an output schema exists and there are only two optional parameters, the description is complete enough. It explains what data is returned, the join context, and the limit. Minor gaps like sorting or default behavior without query are not critical since the schema and output schema cover the rest.
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 schema already describes both parameters (limit and query) with 100% coverage. The description restates 'Optional free-text search by SKU' and 'returns up to 25 rows', which mirrors the schema without adding new syntax or format details. This is the baseline 3 where the schema carries the heavy lifting.
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 tool returns warehouse stock levels by SKU (available, reserved, incoming, blocked) joined with master product data, with optional search. The verb 'Get' plus specific fields and the mention of 'joined to the master product' distinguish it from sibling tools like search_inventory and get_stock_status.
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 context is implied: use this to get stock levels by SKU with a row limit. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer search_inventory or other sibling tools. This places it at 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.