get_inventory_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly notes that this is an introspection stub and not a live endpoint, which is critical for an agent. However, it omits other behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling, making this a partial disclosure.

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 composed of two clear, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence groups the inventory health data, and the second explains the stub nature. There is no wasted text, but the structure is simple and not innovative.

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 that there are 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to use the parameters effectively, what the tool returns, or how it differs from other inventory tools. The stub disclaimer is helpful but does not compensate for the lack of completeness for a real-world use case.

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 100%, meaning all 7 parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no further context about parameters, so the information is sufficient but not enriched beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (read) and resource (inventory health) and lists specific data elements (age buckets, weeks of cover, storage fees). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_fba_inventory or get_inventory_risk_triage, which could reduce clarity for an AI agent.

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 mentions that the local stdio server is an introspection stub and the hosted endpoint is the real tool, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among siblings. There is no discussion of prerequisites or context for using inventory health metrics.

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