list_inventory_items

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists items and optionally searches, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond the schema's offset param, default result cap, whether results are ordered, what fields each item contains, or rate-limit/auth implications. It does mention using 'fields' to keep responses small, which is a partial behavioral hint. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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?

Single efficient sentence in the description; params carry their own detail. Minimal waste. Could arguably add more value, but the structure is appropriately terse and front-loaded.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no nested objects. It's a moderately simple filtered-list operation. The description covers the search feature but omits details like default sort order, pagination semantics interplay between offset/limit, and what the default return shape looks like. Adequate for a simple listing tool, but with clear gaps given zero annotation support and no output schema.

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 75%: 'limit', 'fields', and 'offset' are documented in the schema, but 'q' has no description there. The description adds meaning for 'q' (search by sku/title), which compensates for the one undocumented parameter. The description doesn't add format details beyond what schema provides for the other three params. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List inventory items'. It also notes optional search by sku/title via 'q', distinguishing it as a listing/search tool. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_products, list_orders, or list_collections — those are different resource types, so the resource name provides enough differentiation.

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 it's for browsing inventory items and optionally searching. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., when to use list_products vs this tool, or when to use set_inventory_level for mutations). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Adequate but minimal context.

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