what_should_i_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the exact filtering conditions (>=3 distinct purchase dates, days_since >= median), the exclusion rule (past 3x median, presumed discontinued), and the sort order (overshoot ratio descending). This goes beyond a simple 'returns items that need reordering' and provides actionable logic.

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?

One dense sentence contains all essential information: criteria, exclusions, and ordering. No filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place, making it an excellent example of concise, information-dense writing.

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 has no parameters, the description explains the core behavior comprehensively, and an output schema exists to define the return value. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%) and there is nothing for the description to add. The description does not attempt to explain parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 is warranted for a no-parameter tool.

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 resource (items past repurchase interval) and provides precise criteria, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'recommend'. The tool name implies the purpose, and the description's specificity distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock or get_events.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes the algorithm but not the business context or prerequisites (e.g., needing purchase history). A sentence about using this for replenishment decisions would have helped.

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