Inquiry management

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or mutation behavior. It does not explain that 'reply' likely sends a message, 'mark_complete' changes inquiry status, or any other behavioral impact. The bare action list offers no transparency about consequences.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the resource and lists all action families. It contains no wasteful verbiage. However, for a multi-action tool with 10 parameters, a more structured breakdown (e.g., grouping actions with their typical parameters) would improve clarity without adding much length.

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 has 10 parameters, an enum of 7 actions, and no output schema. The description only names the actions and gives no action-specific input requirements, return formats, error conditions, or examples. This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke actions like 'reply' or 'mark_incomplete' correctly.

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 only 30%, leaving 7 of 10 parameters undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning or requirements of any parameter. It only lists actions and provides no insight into fields like 'page', 'message', 'inquiry_number', or 'no_merchant_reply'.

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 the tool manages inquiries and lists supported operations (count, list, detail, reply, read, complete, incomplete). This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are not inquiry-focused. However, the verb 'management' is generic and could be more specific, and the action list only names actions without detail.

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, or which action to select for a given scenario. The description merely enumerates actions like 'reply' and 'mark_read' without context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly clarified.

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