get_inventories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action and does not mention pagination behavior, return structure, sorting, or any additional operational details. While 'list' implies read-only, the description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant phrasing or irrelevant detail, so 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only the core listing purpose. While the parameter schema covers the input side, the absence of any mention of return format, pagination behavior, or other context leaves the description minimally adequate but not complete. It is clear enough for a straightforward read-only list tool, but richer context would improve it.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters (limit, offset, search), so the description doesn't need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly. 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List inventory count documents') and clearly identifies the resource type with the Russian term in parentheses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_documents and search_assortment, which target broader or different document sets.

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 usage for retrieving inventory count documents, but it provides no explicit context on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_documents or search_assortment. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternative tools.

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