Report: Available To Promise

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior, default output format, and the return structure (ATP rows with on-hand, allocated, available quantities), which is valuable non-obvious context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured: the core purpose is stated first, followed by a brief args list, then return description. Every sentence carries useful information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has only three parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior. The description adequately explains pagination, defaults, and what the returned rows contain, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% and every parameter has a detailed description with defaults and constraints. The description's arg list essentially repeats schema information without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 it reports available-to-promise (sellable) quantities per SKU, a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools like total inventory by focusing on sellable quantities, and the question 'how many can I still sell?' adds a practical use case.

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 phrase 'Best for "how many can I still sell?"' provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools like report_total_inventory, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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