get_sku_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the return shape (demand, cover days, stockout date, status) which is valuable given there is no output schema. But it says nothing about read-only nature, behavior for unknown SKUs, or how the projection is computed.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the field list is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the noun-phrase form makes it less immediately actionable than a verb-first statement.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields covers most of what an agent needs. The undocumented leadTimeDays parameter and absent failure behavior keep it from being complete.

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 50%: sku is documented in-schema, but leadTimeDays has no description anywhere. The description never mentions parameters, so the effect of leadTimeDays on days-of-cover and stockout projection is left entirely unexplained.

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?

It names the specific resource and the fields returned (daily demand, days of cover, projected stockout date, status) and scopes it to 'one SKU', which distinguishes it from the list-shaped sibling list_at_risk_skus. It stops short of a verb like 'retrieve', reading as an output-field list rather than an action statement.

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 indication of when to call this instead of get_reorder_suggestion or explain_forecast_inputs, and no preconditions (e.g. whether the SKU must exist or have forecast history). The 'one SKU' scoping is the only implicit usage signal.

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