list_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('50 per page' and 'Page forward with cursor from the prior response'). The 'List' verb implies read-only, but an explicit safety statement would have been stronger.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundancy. Every phrase adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers resource, scope, pagination, and intended use without needing additional details.

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 zero description coverage for the cursor parameter, but the description explicitly explains that cursor is used for pagination and comes from the prior response, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 the tool lists inventory items (stock levels) across variants with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on multi-variant stock listing rather than single-item retrieval (get_inventory) or other list types (list_products).

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 phrase 'Use to audit stock' gives a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the context is adequate for a listing tool.

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