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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that inventory value and dead stock are 'estimated from industry benchmarks,' that assumptions are 'returned transparently,' and it enumerates the output contents (score, flags, diagnosis, actions). This gives a clear picture of a read-only diagnostic operation with no hidden side effects.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, outputs, and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately sized and 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 no output schema, the description comprehensively covers return values (0–100 health score, risk flags, diagnosis, actions) and the estimation methodology. It also clarifies when to use this tool versus the alternative, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 reinforces which parameters are required ('requires only monthly revenue, SKU count, and industry segment') but doesn't add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 purpose: 'Low-friction inventory health estimate for Shopify merchants.' It specifies the verb 'estimate' and the resource 'inventory health,' and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool inventory_health_score by noting 'For a precise score using actual inventory figures, use inventory_health_score instead.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the merchant doesn't have precise inventory figures.' It also names the alternative tool for precise figures and adds an ideal use case ('AI-assisted lead qualification and first-contact diagnostics'), making the usage context unambiguous.

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