get_product_kardex

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 indicates the operation is a query ('Consulta') and mentions a limit cap (max 200), but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, error conditions, or potential performance considerations. It adds some value but leaves key safety and behavior traits unstated.

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, front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, follows with a use case, and then lists parameter semantics clearly. No redundant or fluff content, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and optional filters. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. It could mention pagination behavior beyond the limit (e.g., if limit is only the maximum, are there multiple pages?), but it is mostly complete for a read-only query tool.

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?

Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in the Args section: 'cve_art' as product key, 'cve_alm' as optional warehouse filter, 'fecha_inicio' with format constraints, 'limit' including the maximum, and 'empresa' as optional. This goes beyond the schema and provides practical usage details.

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 queries inventory movement history (Kardex) for a product, specifying it audits entries and exits by sales, purchases, and transfers. This distinct resource and operation set it apart from siblings like get_stock_by_warehouse or get_product_detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_stock_by_warehouse for current stock or get_product_detail for product attributes. It neither implies nor explicitly states selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer that historical movement queries belong here.

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