list_inventory_levels

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating the maximum page size and identifying the inventory quantities returned where provided.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose and filters, followed by pagination and use cases. It is efficient overall, though some phrasing is fragmented across line breaks rather than fully polished.

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 values need not be fully described, and annotations cover safety. But with seven parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the missing semantics for three filtering/grouping parameters leave the definition only minimally adequate for complex inventory queries.

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% across seven parameters. The description explains pagination and outlet/product filtering, but leaves group_variants, include_inactive, and root_product_ids entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific resource and scope: inventory levels across the catalog, with optional outlet and product filters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_inventory or list_stock_adjustments, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 gives explicit usage contexts: 'what's in stock at outlet X' and low-stock reviews. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_inventory, so routing guidance is helpful but not complete.

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