Get inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '取得' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any constraints beyond the basic purpose. This is minimally transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and target resource.

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?

The tool is structurally simple with one well-documented parameter, so the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations, an output schema, or guidance distinguishing it from sibling inventory tools, the overall context 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes item_urls as an array of manageNumber values. The description adds only the context that these URLs specify the products, which is marginal 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 '指定商品の在庫情報を取得' clearly states the verb (取得/get) and resource (在庫情報/inventory info) for specified products. It is distinct from generic getters but does not differentiate among the many inventory-related siblings like rms_bulk_get_inventory or rms_get_variant_inventory.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rms_bulk_get_inventory, rms_bulk_get_inventory_range, or rms_get_variant_inventory. The description gives no context for selection.

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