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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the returned quantities (available, reserved, total, in-transit) and discloses the on_order semantics including overdue flagging for passed PO dates.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return details. Every clause adds either scope or return semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns itself, and it does so thoroughly (quantities per warehouse plus on_order with PO dates and overdue flag). Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (product_id, warehouse_id) are already fully documented, and the description only restates that warehouse filtering is optional. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get inventory levels for a product') and immediately scopes it ('optionally filtered by warehouse'). The explicit return contents (per-warehouse breakdown, on_order) make it unmistakably distinct from siblings like adjust_inventory or get_stockout_risk.

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 implies usage via 'optionally filtered by warehouse' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never points to an alternative. An agent has no help choosing between this and get_stockout_risk, get_products, or adjust_inventory.

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