get_forecast_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses platform-dependent behavior ('BigCommerce today; on other platforms... returns a clear not-available message') and how the tool should be chained with forecast_bundle — both genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema. It does not disclose data freshness or whether alerts are computed on-the-fly versus batch-generated, which would matter for restock decisions.

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?

Four sentences with purpose front-loaded and the alert kinds packed into the first sentence. The query examples and platform note each earn their place. Minor redundancy: the four alert kinds restate enum values already present in the schema.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers triggers, alert kinds, pairing strategy, and platform behavior — a strong burden for an agent to call it correctly. The notable gap is an explicit contrast with sibling alert tools (get_drift_alerts, get_opportunities) and any hint at the return shape, though the absence of an output schema makes the latter less critical.

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%; every parameter (kind, limit, severity) is fully documented with enums, defaults, and min/max bounds. The description's list of alert kinds roughly mirrors the kind enum, adding little semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('list forecast-based alerts') and enumerates the exact content ('bundles with stockout risk, demand drop, demand spike, or an unreliable forecast curve'). This clearly distinguishes it from alert-adjacent siblings like get_drift_alerts or get_opportunities by anchoring it to forecast-based inventory alerts.

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?

Four concrete merchant queries are provided as trigger phrases ('what's at risk of stockout?', 'which bundles are losing demand?', etc.), which is strong positive usage guidance. It also names the companion tool ('Pair with forecast_bundle to drill into a specific bundle') and notes platform availability. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly states when NOT to use it versus siblings like get_drift_alerts or get_opportunities.

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