Get Inventory Levels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds filtering capabilities but no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format nuances, or the distinction between store and location_id. With rich annotations, the description contributes moderate extra value.

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 two concise sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and primary filters. No wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with robust annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and basic invocation. It captures the core functionality and filtering dimensions. However, it does not address pagination or the relationship between 'store' (required) and 'location_id', which could cause minor ambiguity, but this is largely covered by the schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters. The description mentions filtering by location, product, or SKU, which maps to location_id, product_id, and sku, but this adds no new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inventory levels') with clear scope ('for products at specific locations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like inventory_adjust_* which modify inventory rather than read it.

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 implies usage context by stating the filtering options, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The readOnlyHint annotation helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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