inventory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that returned fields are 'normalized' and 'audit-safe', which is vague phrasing rather than concrete behavioral context (no pagination, no result-count, no permission notes). Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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, action verb and scope front-loaded, and the exclusion clause placed last where it belongs. The long comma-separated field inventory is a mild dump but is the substantive part of the description.

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 explanation is correctly omitted, and the required parameter's allowed values are stated. However, for a 13-parameter search tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the bulk of the input contract (filtering, paging, action_name) unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.

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 13 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden, yet it only clarifies the one required parameter (inventory_type: accessory/component/consumable). It says nothing about query, limit/offset paging, sort/order, action_name (default 'list'), or the item_id/company_id/category_id/location_id/supplier_id/manufacturer_id filter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and resource scope (accessories, components, consumables) and enumerates the field families returned, so the agent knows exactly what is being fetched. It does not explicitly name its search siblings (catalog_search, assets_search) to distinguish the domain, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Explicit negative routing is present: 'Do not use for writes, assignments, or deletion,' which steers the agent away from inventory_write / inventory_lifecycle / delete_resource without naming them. It also tells the agent to set inventory_type, giving a positive usage condition. It stops short of naming the alternative search tools for adjacent domains.

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