Request Inventory Checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it declares the operation mutating, that work is queued in the background, that results are asynchronous and must be fetched later, and that attribution of the request differs for platform-stale items versus caller-initiated ones. It omits permissions, rate limits, and whether repeat calls deduplicate already-queued checks.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds useful information (mutating/async nature, attribution rules, return shape, next step). It is somewhat dense and wordy in the attribution sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement. The description covers what gets queued, attribution, and the follow-up read, which is enough to call it correctly; the notable gap is that server_version is left entirely unexplained for a required parameter.

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 only 50%: model_id is documented in the schema and echoed in the description ("a model's inventory"), but server_version is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no meaning about what server_version controls or what format it expects, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (queue) and precisely enumerates the two work items created: the tag check for entities whose tags are not current and the duplicate check for entries on uncovered pairs. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_inventory_judgements (reads results), declare_inventory_tags, and decide_inventory_pair.

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 tells the agent what to do after calling ("Read the results with get_inventory_judgements once they land"), which names the follow-up tool and its timing. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to call it or of any preconditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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