get_slow_movers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the internal computation (cross-referencing inventory and sales, calculating days_of_supply) and the APIs called (GET /v1/products, GET /v1/orders/search). It also describes the return structure, though it does not explicitly state it's read-only or mention rate limits. Overall, it offers good insight into behavior.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (purpose, usage, API calls, return structure) and is reasonably concise. It contains all necessary information without verbose repetition, though it could be slightly shorter.

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 lack of an output schema, the description usefully specifies the return dict structure (period, period_days, total_products, slow_movers). It explains the analytical process and parameters. It does not cover error handling or pagination, but for a read-only analysis tool, it is sufficiently 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (start/end dates, threshold default). It reinforces context but does not compensate for low coverage, which is not an issue here.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: finding slow-moving inventory items by comparing stock and sales. It explains the logic (days_of_supply, threshold) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_inventory_turnover or get_low_stock_alerts, which focus on different metrics.

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 states it assists clearance decisions but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_inventory_turnover). It lacks exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance, making it less helpful for selection among similar tools.

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