Report: Total Inventory

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only/idempotent; the description adds useful behavioral context including pagination, response format options, and the returned row structure (per SKU/warehouse with on-hand/available quantities). It does not over-claim or contradict 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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a read-only report tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, parameter defaults, and the response shape (consolidated rows with quantities). With strong annotations, this 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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with full descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description's Args section mostly mirrors the schema, adding only a slightly condensed version, so no additional semantic value beyond the 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 provides total consolidated on-hand inventory across locations and highlights the use case 'how much of each SKU do we have?'. The word 'consolidated' differentiates it from list_inventory and other inventory tools.

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?

It provides a clear use case with 'Best for' and indicates that it's paginated, but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or name alternative tools like logiwa_list_inventory.

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