commerce_inventory_check

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not disclose whether the action is read-only, modifies data, or has side effects, which is critical for an action with no annotations.

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 concise, with a clear opening line and an Args section. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose and parameter meanings, though some technical routing details could be streamlined.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately for a simple action, but it lacks details about the return value (despite an output schema being present) and any preconditions or effects, making it minimally complete for complex usage.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this clarifies their purpose beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 states it runs the 'inventory_check' commerce domain agent action, but does not define what inventory check entails (e.g., checking stock levels, availability). It lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like commerce_inventory_valuation or commerce_catalog_sync.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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