inventory_risk

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

The description explains the logic for both risk types, including the heuristic with a 200-group cap. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job of disclosing behavior without contradictions.

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 well-structured with a brief intro and bullet-pointed parameters. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, parameter descriptions could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the two risk types, the heuristic limitation, and all parameters. It fully describes what the tool does for its complexity level, though it omits explicit read-only confirmation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter's role (dead_stock_days window, top_n rows, timezone_offset for 'today') beyond the schema's default values, adding meaningful context.

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 it reports stock at risk, specifically shortages and dead stock. It includes definitions and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'procurement_watch' or 'production_health' which likely have different focuses.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. The context is purely functional.

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