get_low_stock_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool estimates days-of-supply using fulfillable inventory and sales velocity, implying a read-only analytical operation. However, it does not explicitly state there are no mutations or discuss data freshness or authentication, but the context is sufficient for a simple analytical tool.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It avoids fluff and clearly states the computation without being verbose.

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 tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core logic, and the output format is presumably handled by the schema. However, it lacks a brief note on use cases or what the response contains, but that is not critical given the presence of an output schema. The ambiguity around the threshold is a minor gap.

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 explain the parameters. It explicitly mentions 'lookback_days' as the period for sales velocity, but the role of 'days_of_supply_threshold' is only implied by the 'at risk' phrase. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description doesn't fully clarify the threshold logic.

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 identifies the tool's function as flagging SKUs at risk of stockout, with a specific calculation method (days-of-supply from inventory and sales velocity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle costs, orders, profitability, and inventory summary.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_inventory_summary. The use case is implied by the 'at risk' framing, but there is no direct comparison or exclusions provided.

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