get_inventory_movements

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

The description discloses the tool is a 'local stdio server' stub and 'Hosted endpoint only', indicating it may not return real data. However, it does not describe read-only behavior, pagination, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency beyond the stub nature.

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, very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function and stub status. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the stub notice, but overall it is appropriately sized for the information provided.

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 tool has 7 optional parameters, a nested 'filters' object, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'inventory movements' entail, how parameters interact, or what the response contains. Agents are left with minimal context to form correct requests.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have basic descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or typical usage patterns. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Inventory change history' with a verb+resource structure, indicating it reads inventory movement data. The prefix '[Inventory / read]' reinforces the domain and action. However, it does not differentiate from other inventory read tools like get_inventory_health or get_fba_inventory, which reduces clarity among siblings.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond being a stub. Agents lack context for tool selection.

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