calc_reorder_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It fully discloses the computation logic (daily demand × (lead time + safety days)) and the decision rule (current stock ≤ ROP), making the tool's read/calculate behavior clear. It stops short of explicitly saying 'read-only, no side effects' or describing the return shape, but 'calculate' strongly implies a pure analysis operation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, includes the formula as precise context, and finishes with the decision rule. There is no fluff or repetition; every clause adds useful information.

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?

For a calculation tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the formula, the per-item scope, and the flagging condition. It does not detail the exact return fields or ordering, but agents can infer the tool returns item-level ROP and a 'needs ordering' indicator. This is complete enough for selection and reasonable invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by showing how leadTimeDays and safetyDays combine in the ROP formula and how demandDays relates to daily demand. It does not elaborate on topN, but the schema already describes that parameter well.

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 specific action ('Calculate Reorder Point'), identifies the resource ('each stocked item'), gives the exact formula, and names the output behavior ('flag which items need ordering now'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like calc_eoq and predict_stockout because of the explicit threshold condition (current stock ≤ ROP).

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 conveys a clear usage context: whenever a reorder point needs to be computed and items below that point must be flagged for ordering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to select it from a crowded inventory-analysis sibling set.

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