keepa_inventory_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists analysis outputs but does not disclose whether it triggers any side effects, what inputs are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a read-only analysis tool, this is minimal; it adds no context beyond the core function.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs. It is efficient and free of unnecessary filler, though it could be more specific about expected inputs or output format to earn a 5.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about how to configure the analysis (e.g., when to supply ASINs vs categoryId, how analysisType changes behavior). The current description is too thin to fully guide an agent on tool invocation, especially with sibling tools offering overlapping capabilities.

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 documents all six parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds marginal semantic value by aligning analysisType values (fast_movers, slow_movers, etc.) with its listed outputs, but it does not explain parameter relationships or usage details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 performs 'comprehensive inventory analysis' and explicitly enumerates the types of insights it provides (fast movers, slow movers, stockout risks, seasonal patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like keepa_category_analysis or keepa_sales_velocity by focusing on inventory-specific analytics.

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?

No explicit guidance is given regarding when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., needing ASINs or category IDs), or exclusions. While the title and description imply inventory analysis, there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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