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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: query matches substring against multiple fields, results are master-grain with per-channel/per-store/per-warehouse stock and a health state. This exceeds what annotations provide and helps set expectations.

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 three sentences: it opens with a clear purpose, then details matching behavior and result structure, then states filters. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 the presence of an output schema and thorough parameter descriptions, the tool description is complete enough. It covers query semantics, result granularity, stock breakdown, health state values, and available filters, so an agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that the `query` parameter matches product name, accounting SKU, brand, or variant SKU as a substring, and it lists the healthState enum values. This enriches the meaning of the most complex parameter. `limit` and `channel` are already well-described in the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find inventory for a specific product across all channels.' It also distinguishes itself from generic search tools by specifying key matching fields (product name, SKU, brand) and output characteristics (per-channel stock, health state), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: search by query and filter by channel or health state. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling tools like get_inventory or search_catalog, nor does it state exclusions.

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