inventario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns inventory levels and mentions a max_items parameter (default 50), but does not describe side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, or any limitations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and one line for the parameter. No redundant words, efficiently front-loaded.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It could briefly mention the return format (e.g., list of SKU numbers with levels) but is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 description explicitly explains the only parameter 'max_items' as 'máximo de SKUs a devolver (default 50)'. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by adding clear meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Niveles de inventario FBA por SKU en el marketplace actual' clearly states the verb ('provides'), resource ('inventory levels'), and scope ('by SKU in the current marketplace'). It is distinct from siblings like 'pedidos_recientes' (recent orders) and 'resumen_ventas' (sales summary).

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?

Usage is implied from the purpose (checking current inventory levels), but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The sibling names provide context but the description itself offers no comparative guidance.

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