rr_get_inventory_value

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not confirm safety, required permissions, or potential costs (e.g., data freshness, pagination). No mention of side effects or limitations.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is underspecified. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness, earning a middle score.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it leaves significant gaps. The agent cannot infer the response structure, whether 'breakdown' means by category/store/etc., or how the optional store_id parameter affects results.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'store_id'. The description does not explain its purpose, format, or effect (e.g., filtering by store). For a tool with no parameter docs, the description should compensate, but it fails entirely.

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 'Get total inventory value breakdown' specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('total inventory value breakdown'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like 'rr_get_inventory_position' that focus on quantity. However, 'breakdown' is vague and could be more specific (e.g., by category or store).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rr_get_inventory_position' or 'rr_get_stockout_risk'. The description does not mention prerequisites, filters, or comparative context.

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