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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond that: rows are ordered newest first and each row carries a running quantity, average cost, and value after the movement. It stops short of disclosing pagination or history depth limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope (one item), then the ordering, then the payload fields. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and their ordering, which is the key information an agent needs to decide to call it. Minor gaps remain around result size, pagination, and behavior for an item with no movements.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented item_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces that the scope is exactly one item but adds no format, lookup, or error semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 resource and scope: a single item's stock-move history, with the per-row fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from aggregate tools like inv_stock and inv_valuation by describing moves rather than levels, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 is only implied by the phrase "one item's stock moves" – an agent can infer this is the drill-down for a single item versus a portfolio-wide view. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer inv_moves, inv_stock, or inv_moves-style siblings, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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