catalog_inventory_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'without running plugin code,' indicating a safe, non-executing read operation. However, it doesn't describe the return format, error behavior, or any side effects. Since it's a read-only operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key constraint. No redundant words or filler.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is the only source of context. It explains the tool's core function but leaves out critical details: what job_id is, what 'per-candidate failures' refers to, the return format, and when to use it. For a tool with a single parameter and no other documentation, this is incomplete.

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?

The schema has a single parameter job_id with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what job_id refers to or how it should be used. The agent must infer its meaning from the name alone, which is insufficient. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 clear verb ('read') and specific resource ('plugin inventory coverage and per-candidate failures'). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting 'without running plugin code,' which separates it from tools that execute plugins. However, it doesn't directly contrast with the sibling tools catalog_inventory or catalog_inventory_resume, so it's not a full 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine whether to pick this over catalog_inventory or other inventory-related tools based on the description alone.

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