user_inventory

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'This tool is read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add value beyond the structured fields: it discloses the breadth of what is returned, the optional EULA inclusion, and that assets follow the same normalization as assets_search with specific fields.

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 that front-load the core purpose and then qualify scope. Nothing is padded, though the field enumeration is somewhat list-heavy.

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 spelled out, and the description reasonably covers retrieval scope. However, for a four-parameter read tool the identification semantics (which identifier to pass) and sibling disambiguation remain unexplained, leaving an agent to infer call mechanics.

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 four parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially succeeds. 'Unambiguously identified user' hints that one of email/user_id/username is used for identification but never says which, whether they are alternatives or all required; 'optional EULA' loosely maps to include_eulas but is not tied to the flag.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve everything assigned to one unambiguously identified user in one call') and enumerates the categories returned (assets, accessories, licences, consumables, EULAs). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by citing the assets_search normalization, though it never contrasts with inventory_search directly.

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 is only implied: the 'in one call' phrasing suggests this is the batched alternative to per-category lookups, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead when...' statement. No prerequisites (e.g., needing at least one identifier) are given.

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