invoice_processing__calculate_inventory_cost_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a throttling constraint ('no more than 100 requests per 60 seconds') and a caching recommendation ('cache the result in the dialog'), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations. This is valuable context for the agent, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It then adds two useful operational notes: where to get IDs and a throttling constraint. It is well-structured and efficient, though the throttling note could be considered extra but is relevant to usage.

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 a nested request structure (request object with items array) and no output schema. The description gives ID sourcing and throttling but does not explain the request structure, required fields (like dateIncoming), or the return format. The schema covers the structure, but the description could be more complete about the overall context and expected behavior.

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%, and the description only provides sourcing hints for organizationId and productId. It does not explain other parameters like dateIncoming, storeId, or amountFactor. The schema itself has descriptions for these fields, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage beyond two IDs, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for the rest.

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's purpose: 'Calculate the cost of goods in warehouses.' It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('cost prices of goods in warehouses'), and while it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, none of the listed sibling tools perform this function, so it naturally stands out.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives hints on sourcing IDs (organizationId and productId) and a throttling note, which are operational details, not usage context or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or how it compares to other invoice_processing tools.

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