inventory_reorder_candidates

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states 'Advisory ONLY: no document is created and nothing is posted,' discloses that preferred_supplier_id is null until an extension, and notes that an empty list is acceptable. This provides valuable context about side effects, null ability, and return behavior that the annotation alone does not convey.

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 dense yet efficient, packed with multiple key facts in a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flow, but includes an internal reference (US-J07.10) that may be noise to an agent. Overall, each sentence earns its place, though a bit of trimming could improve clarity.

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 description covers the output fields, the advisory nature, the optional scope, and the empty-list behavior, which is substantial for a read-only tool without an output schema. It does not explain the thresholds parameter, or any pagination/limits, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. The description is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explains that warehouse_ids and location_ids are optional scope filters, which is useful given the schema has no parameter descriptions. However, it does not mention the required workspaceId or the thresholds parameter at all, and the schema allows additionalProperties, so the description leaves significant parameter ambiguity. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates but is not comprehensive.

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 returns the subset of the low-stock list with a positive shortfall, names the specific output fields (suggested_qty, current_qty, reorder_point, etc.), and explicitly marks it as advisory-only. It distinguishes itself from the full low-stock list by being the filtered subset, and specifies it provides a payload for downstream I00/PO tools. This is a precise verb+resource+filter definition.

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 explains when to use this tool: when you need reorder candidates with a positive shortfall, and it warns it is advisory only (no creation or posting), indicating not to use it for transactional actions. It mentions it hands off to requisition or PO tools, implying a follow-up workflow. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., inventory_low_stock) or state 'use this instead of X', so some inference about the full list tool is needed.

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