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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: removed variants are excluded by default unless include_removed is set, ~200 metrics exist, and the underlying endpoint is GET /api/v1/variants. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination-behavior detail is offered.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and then the single most important instruction (always pass `fields`), followed by defaults, field decoding, and filtering guidance. Dense but every parenthetical earns its place; no 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the de facto return contract by listing the default fields and their semantics, plus the filter/sort vocabulary and the removed-variant default. An agent can call this correctly without opening the schema.

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 only 67% and `fields` and `include_removed` carry no schema descriptions at all; the description compensates by stating the exact default field set and decoding cryptic metric names (oos = forecasted days to sell out, under_value = forecasted lost revenue, replenishment = recommended order quantity). It also illustrates filter/sort usage, which the schema describes only generically.

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 (List) and resource (product variants) scoped to Inventory Planner's computed metrics, and enumerates the metric families (forecast, replenishment, days to sell out, lost revenue, etc.). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_variant (single variant) and the purchase-order listing tools.

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?

Gives concrete usage direction: 'Always pass `fields` to pick the metrics you need' and 'Use `filters` and `sort` for questions like which SKUs need reordering'. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (get_variant) for single-record lookups, so a 4 rather than 5.

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