get_expiring_items

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 does add value by stating the default horizon ('Par défaut vérifie les 30 prochains jours') and implies future expiration, but it does not clarify whether already-expired items are excluded, how results are ordered, or any pagination/error behaviors. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 and well-structured: it opens with the core function, then provides usage guidance, and closes with the default behavior. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers purpose, usage, and default parameter behavior. It lacks explicit return format details, but that is not required given the simplicity. A minor gap is not mentioning whether results are sorted or if expired items are included, but overall it is complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'days', with a default of 30. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'prochains N jours' and the default 30, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Lister les produits dont la date d'expiration approche dans les prochains N jours' (List products whose expiration date approaches within the next N days). This uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_low_stock_items by focusing on expiration rather than stock levels.

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 explicit usage scenarios: 'Utiliser quand l'utilisateur demande les produits qui vont expirer, pour planifier des promos de déstockage, ou pour faire le point avant une commande.' These are clear contexts for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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