get_inventory_risk_triage

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses the read nature, the risk categories, and the stub status. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and limitations, though it could mention that no data is returned locally.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second notes hosting constraint. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description could elaborate on what 'at risk' entails or how filters interact. The stub note reduces expectations but still leaves gaps about expected return format.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Optional start date for time-range reads'). Baseline 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 starts with a clear tag '[Inventory / read]' and specifies 'SKUs at risk: low stock, overstock, aged, or stranded'. This clearly identifies the tool as a read operation for risky inventory, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle archives, creates, updates, etc.

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 notes 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub', informing the agent that this tool is not functional locally. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other inventory-related get_* tools (e.g., get_fba_inventory, get_inventory_health) or specify prerequisites.

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