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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the risk scores share a coverage definition with get_days_of_cover (important for consistency), and it discloses the output grain. Return format is deferred to the existing output schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, front-loading what is returned before the exclusions. Slightly overpacked in the first sentence (four data domains plus a cross-reference plus grain), but every clause carries information.

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 10-param read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: scope, grain, distinguishing cross-reference, and misuse exclusions. It does not explain how the risk_focus categories interact with the day thresholds, but that gap is minor given the schema detail.

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% across all 10 parameters, including defaults, ranges, and clamping behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions days-of-cover and risk scores conceptually but adds no syntax, units, or interaction details beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns ranked inventory risk signals') and enumerates the domains covered: FBA/AWD stock, sales velocity, inventory health, and suppressed listings. It also declares the grain (ASIN/SKU risk rows), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_fba_inventory, get_inventory_health, and get_days_of_cover.

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?

Explicitly excludes two misuse cases ('raw snapshots or movement audit') and points to alternatives. The guidance is clear but the alternatives are described by category ('inventory snapshot or ledger tools') rather than by exact sibling names, so an agent must still map those to get_fba_inventory or get_inventory_movements itself.

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