get_inventory_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions, whether inactive/zero-quantity locations are included, pagination, or the shape of the quantities returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and scope. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it leaves obvious questions unanswered rather than being wasteful.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no explanation of the return shape or the meaning of 'inventory quantities' across locations, more context would help an agent confirm expected results.

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 100% and both parameters (productId, include) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'across all locations', which scopes the result but says nothing about how the include parameter behaves (e.g., locationSummaries, sublocationSummaries).

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inventory quantities') plus the scope ('for a product across all locations'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not however name or distinguish itself from the sibling get_inventory_summaries_batch, which covers similar ground.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this single-product call versus get_inventory_summaries_batch, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the wording.

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