get_on_hand_vs_pos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the computation of delta (units_sold − available), the default time window, and what data is returned. It stops short of explicitly stating 'read-only' or listing side effects, but the 'get' verb and return-focused wording strongly imply a safe, non-mutating operation.

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 compact and efficient: a single paragraph with line breaks for readability, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes examples, return details, and an action rule without any filler.

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 an output schema exists, the description still adds value by explaining what the outputs represent (delta, product block) and how they support order sizing. It also covers all four parameters thoroughly and includes actionable guidance. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 must fully compensate. It does: store_id and sku get concrete examples, sku is tied to a product, reason is explained as required for audit, and since has its default behavior fully documented. Every parameter is meaningfully described beyond the raw schema.

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: to get current on-hand inventory and POS sales for a SKU at a store. It specifies the output components (inventory, POS, delta, product block) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_stores and create_replenishment by focusing on the inventory/sales view rather than store catalog or replenishment actions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when to escalate: if delta >= 6, call create_replenishment. It also explains the default POS window (last 24h) and how to override it with 'since', giving clear usage context for the category buyer view.

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