inventory_costing__fifo_cogs

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions purchases are 'in order' but lacks details on validation, sorting requirements, error handling, or side effects. For a computational tool, this is minimal.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the category and naming the method. It is brief but covers purpose and basic output, with no wasted words.

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 minimally states outputs (COGS and ending value) but omits format. Input structure is vaguely defined. Adequate for a simple computation but could be more specific.

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 0%, but description adds that purchases is a list of (units, unit_cost) pairs, providing structure beyond bare 'array' type. However, the structure is ambiguous (array of arrays or objects?) and units_sold receives no explanation.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates FIFO COGS, listing inputs (purchases with units and unit cost) and outputs (COGS and ending value). It clearly distinguishes from sibling costing methods by naming FIFO.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use FIFO vs other methods (LIFO, weighted average). The category '[inventory-costing]' and name imply context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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