get_inventory_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, caching, or data freshness. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the exact functionality and outputs; the second provides concrete usage examples. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It mentions the data types (cards on hand, quantities, prices) but not the structure (e.g., single summary object, array, pagination). The limit parameter hints at possible pagination but it's not described. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%: both parameters (limit, name_contains) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents them adequately. The baseline of 3 applies because the description doesn't compensate or add extra context, but the schema covers the essentials.

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 tool retrieves the current inventory dashboard, listing specific data (cards on hand, quantities owned/listed, latest market prices). It provides example questions ('what do I have in stock', 'what am I sitting on that I should list') that make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from siblings like get_latest_prices (price-specific) or get_box_pnl (profit/loss).

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 'Use for questions like...' giving direct when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the provided examples are sufficient to route an agent correctly for inventory summary queries.

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