inventory_low_stock

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states 'Pure derivation over the ledger; posts nothing,' clarifies that insufficient history yields null days-of-cover with a 'usage_history_insufficient' warning, notes that empty is an acceptable empty list, and flags safety_stock/suggested_reorder_qty as null until a future extension. These are concrete behavioral disclosures.

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 long but information-dense, front-loading the core definition, then ordering, row fields, filters, and edge cases. The cryptic 'US-J07.2' and German phrase add little, but overall structure is reasonable for a tool with six parameters and no output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing row fields (current_qty, reorder_point, shortfall_qty, etc.), ordering, null behavior, and empty-list semantics. The unexplained 'thresholds' parameter prevents a perfect score, but the rest of the behavior is well covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain location_ids, warehouse_ids, min_shortfall, and include_zero. However, the 'thresholds' object parameter is entirely unexplained, and workspaceId is mentioned only as a required schema field, leaving a clear gap.

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 identifies the resource and result set: 'every stock-tracked item whose on-hand has fallen to or below its D00 reorder point' with a defined ordering. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling 'stock_low_stock', so an agent may struggle to choose between them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inventory_reorder_candidates, stock_on_hand, or the similarly named stock_low_stock. The description only explains optional filter parameters, not the selection context that distinguishes this tool from siblings.

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