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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds substantially more: warehouse_id scopes stock figures only, limit is clamped and one page is scanned, scanTruncated means partial scope coverage, demandTruncated means incomplete history that must never be presented as a complete forecast, and ERP free text is untrusted content to be ignored as instructions.

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 summary followed by clean Args/Returns sections; the length is justified by 12 parameters and the truncation caveats. The heavy markup noise (``...``) and dense inline lists cost a point but little is truly wasted.

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?

For a complex, 12-parameter, paginated read tool, the description covers scope, defaults, truncation semantics, actionable guidance on what to do when truncated, and the downstream write path. Presence of an output schema doesn't remove the need for the interpretive guidance it provides.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden; it documents 11 of 12 parameters, including ilike semantics for article_number_pattern, the warehouse scoping caveat, and per-article call cost for include_supplier. Only correlation_id is left unexplained and the limit clamp has no stated range.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('return one decision-ready disposition record per article in a scope') and the body enumerates exactly what the record contains (stock, on-order, demand, reorder params, supplier, baseline quantity). An agent can distinguish this clearly from generic siblings like get_entity or search_entities.

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?

'One call for reorder proposals' plus the explicit downstream workflow (apply tenant rules from read_settings domain "sops", then feed lines to preview_write_entity) tells the agent where this fits. It gives no explicit exclusion or named alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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