get_my_inventory

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying authentication (API key requirement) and return format ({"items": [...], "count": int}). The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent, and the description does not contradict it. No other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits) are mentioned, but the core is well-covered.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage guidance, a clear parameter list, and return format. It is efficient without being overly verbose, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more compact.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and the description includes a return format and authentication details, the description is fairly complete. It covers pagination, filtering, and key behavioral aspects. Minor gaps like rate limits are not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by providing detailed semantics for all 7 parameters: api_key (prefix, generation URL), status (lifecycle filter list), product_id, project (exact match), q (substring search), limit (range and default), offset. This is comprehensive and adds significant meaning.

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 'List the caller's personal inventory items' with specific verb 'List' and resource 'inventory items'. It also provides example user queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_inventory_item or delete_inventory_item.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use when the user asks "what do I own?", "what's on my wishlist?", "what am I selling?") and mentions the default behavior for status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to sibling search tools, though the context is clear.

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