sku_quantity_wait_qc

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly identifies the tool as a read-only query ('Get'), but does not disclose what happens when the optional `sku` parameter is omitted (e.g., returns totals for all SKUs), nor any permissions or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and key differentiation ('not yet sellable') with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema (to document return values), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it omits any explanation of the `sku` parameter, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero schema description coverage. The description is minimally complete but not fully.

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 should explain the `sku` parameter's role. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from names alone. The parameter's optionality and default value are also undocumented, which is insufficient for effective usage.

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 retrieves the quantity waiting for QC inspection and specifies 'not yet sellable', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `sku_quantity_available` (sellable) and `sku_quantity_in_warehouse` (total). The verb 'get' and resource 'quantity waiting for QC' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to check QC inspection counts) and implicitly differentiates from other sku_quantity tools through the 'not yet sellable' clause. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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