inventory_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the result is sorted most-urgent-first, and the 'will they run out before a new delivery can arrive' logic explains how lead time is factored into the alert.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core condition (at/below reorder point) and then appends the derived fields, plus a short ordering note. No filler, no repetition of the name.

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 parameters, an output schema present, and readOnlyHint set, the description needs only to orient the agent, which it does well. It slightly underspecifies scope (all materials vs. a subset, freshness of the data), but nothing essential to calling it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the description's implication that the tool returns a global alert list.

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 names a specific resource (materials at or below reorder point) and states exactly what the tool reports, including the computed fields. It is unambiguous against siblings such as machine_oee or downtime_pareto, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent supply-chain tools like late_work_orders or get_work_orders.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it wants reorder/exhaustion risk, and the 'most urgent first' ordering hints at triage use. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings or when it does not apply.

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