inventory_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the bounded heuristic for dead-stock detection (200-group cap), which adds transparency about a limitation. It also explains the definitions of shortages and dead stock clearly.

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: a brief introductory sentence, then a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, the two risk types, the bounded heuristic, and all parameters. Contextually complete for a risk-reporting 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all four parameters (dead_stock_days, top_n, timezone_offset, company) with defaults and behavioral context, such as company scoping. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Report stock at risk — shortages and dead stock — in one call.' It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (stock at risk), and distinguishes from sibling tools like absence_overview or business_pulse by specifying the exact risk categories.

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 for inventory risk assessment by explaining shortages and dead stock, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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