get_inventory_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns available + committed quantities; it does not mention pagination behavior, performance implications of unfiltered calls, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of caveats about large result sets or required filters is a notable gap.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the key filtering guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details. This is an ideal length and structure for a tool description.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected return behavior and limitations. It does state the main return content (available + committed quantities) but does not mention that it returns a list, that unfiltered queries may return large volumes, or that pagination is available (only in schema). While not severely incomplete, it leaves the agent with some uncertainty about edge cases.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that location_id and inventory_item_id can be used together ('or both'), which is not explicitly stated in the schema's individual parameter descriptions. This gives the agent a better understanding of how to combine filters, going beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific action ('Get inventory levels'), the resource ('available + committed quantities'), and the scope ('for specific variants at specific locations'). It also mentions the key filters, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_variant or get_product. This is a strong, specific purpose statement.

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 by stating it gets inventory for specific variants/locations and says 'Filter by location_id, inventory_item_id, or both.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (though no sibling seems focused on inventory) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal and mostly about filtering, not overall usage context.

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