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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining the financial behavior: that differences are valued at the 'average cost of that moment' and post to 'Inventory Adjustments.' This level of accounting disclosure is crucial for an AI agent understanding the true impact of the call.

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 verbose, but every sentence provides highly valuable, non-redundant information (e.g., explaining the cost valuation vs. cost of sales). The structure is logical, moving from the basic function to the resulting accounting effects.

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 complexity of inventory management and financial adjustments, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the operational input rules, the functional outcome (count move), and the financial ledger impact (Inventory Adjustments). No critical piece of functional information 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?

While the schema is 100% covered, the description adds critical semantic value by defining the 'reason' field. It specifies that the reason should be 'said plainly' and gives operational examples like ('three damaged in the move'), guiding the agent on the expected linguistic content.

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 records physical counts and, crucially, details the automated consequence of a mismatch—the creation of a count move valued at average cost. This is highly specific and distinct from generic inventory functions.

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?

It provides excellent operational guidelines by instructing the user to record the observed reality ('what was counted, never what you expect') and emphasizes the necessity of a clear 'reason' for the count. It guides data quality and expected input.

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