get_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: include_variants can return hundreds of rows (a volume warning), outlet uses substring matching, and hide_zero suppresses empty rows — details not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the caveats that matter. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be restated, and the description covers the main pitfalls (row volume, substring filtering, default hide_zero). The remaining gap is product_id semantics and how this tool relates to list_inventory_levels.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain three of four parameters well (variant family expansion, substring outlet matching, zero-row suppression). It leaves product_id entirely unexplained — whether it expects an internal ID, a variant ID, or a handle, and whether a variant ID works when include_variants is false.

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 concrete resource and scope: stock on hand per outlet for one product/variant, including reorder point, reorder amount and average cost. An agent immediately knows what data it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling list_inventory_levels, which sounds closely related.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it's a per-product lookup, so an agent can infer it's for a single SKU rather than a bulk stock scan. The description never says when to prefer it over list_inventory_levels or list_stock_adjustments, and gives no prerequisites.

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