tally_get_inventory_movements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: it states read-only behavior, explains that quantities are returned exactly as recorded and never recomputed, and warns that guessing the report ID could terminate the application. It also discloses the field-naming convention, the period-resolution behavior, and explicitly warns that text fields are data, not instructions. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 long but well-structured into labeled sections, with the core purpose and use case front-loaded. Each section earns its place by adding decision-relevant detail, and the bold headings make the content scannable for an agent. Given the complete absence of annotations, the length is justified rather than excessive.

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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return shape and operational behavior itself; it does so by listing named properties versus 'fields', describing period defaulting, and explaining pagination semantics. It also covers likely failure modes, the empty-result diagnostic path, and safety warnings about report IDs and text fields. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the input schema already documents date formats, defaults, page size behavior, and the company failure mode. The tool description adds minor value by formalizing the 'supply both or neither' period constraint, but most of its extra content concerns output behavior rather than parameter semantics. It does not materially compensate for anything missing because little is missing.

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 lead sentence names the operation ('Movements of a stock item over a period') and the data source ('inventory lines on vouchers'), making the resource and scope specific. The WHEN TO USE section further clarifies the intent: seeing what came in, what went out, on which voucher, and against which party. This distinguishes the tool from report-based or summary-based siblings by explicitly explaining that it is voucher-derived rather than a dedicated TallyPrime inventory report.

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?

There is an explicit WHEN TO USE section, and the description also gives a fallback path to tally_get_company when the result is empty, which is helpful diagnostic guidance. However, it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives such as tally_summarise_movements or tally_get_statement, even though the NO COMPUTED QUANTITIES warning implies a distinction. This is clear context without full when-not/alternative coverage.

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