get_restock_suggestions

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses that the operation is non-destructive (examines, returns), covers all material types, and sorts results by urgency. It does not mention any destructive side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 highly concise with two sentences. The first sentence provides a clear, front-loaded purpose. The second adds necessary detail about scope and sorting. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the nature of its output (restock suggestions with purchase links, sorted by urgency). It could be more specific about the output format, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 has 0 parameters, so no additional parameter information is needed. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable.

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 verb 'find', 'examines', and 'returns', and the resource 'materials running low' in inventory. It explicitly says it returns restock suggestions for materials projected to run out within 30 days, sorted by urgency. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'forecast_material_consumption' or 'list_materials'.

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 clearly implies when to use: to get restock suggestions for materials running low. It provides context by stating it examines all material types and returns suggestions for those running out in 30 days. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, slightly reducing score from 5.

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