summarize_product_moves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions summarization and 'suspicious signals,' which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how signals are determined, what scope of data is covered, or what output characteristics to expect beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, though it is lean enough that some semantic gaps remain.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks parameter details, usage context, and differentiation from important siblings. For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, this is insufficient context for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It implies product_id through 'a product's movement history,' but the limit parameter is completely unexplained, including how it affects the summary or its default behavior.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('a product's movement history'), and adds the distinctive 'suspicious signals' aspect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like audit_product_history or summarize_product_location_flows, so it loses the top score.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as audit_product_history or summarize_product_location_flows. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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