low_stock_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the sorting order (lowest stock first), the time window (last 30 days), and the included metrics (units sold and revenue). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what the result set contains.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action (products running low on stock) and appends the key details (lowest first, units sold, revenue, last 30 days). There is zero redundancy or unnecessary wording.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the core behavior (which products are returned, sorting, metrics, time window). It does not mention pagination or response limits, but given the read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, this is not a significant gap. The description is complete enough for correct 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'threshold' parameter with description, default, min, and max (schema coverage 100%). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: it returns products running low on stock, sorted by lowest stock first, along with units sold and revenue over the last 30 days. This distinguishes it from siblings like top_products (which focuses on bestsellers) and sales_summary (aggregate sales). The verb+resource is specific and actionable.

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 a clear use case ('to decide what to restock') but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like top_products or sales_summary. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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