detect_slow_moving_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burdens. It explains the tool's live dependency on get_stock_overview and the required input map. It does not mention side effects or destructive actions, but it is clear about its read-like nature and 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, dependency, and limitation. No fluff, all information is essential and well-structured.

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 complexity (nested object, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior, inputs, and a critical limitation. It does not explain the output format, but the lack of output schema makes that less critical. It is sufficient for correct usage.

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 adds value for two of four parameters (warehouse and movementAgeByMaterial) by explaining their role and constraints. The other two parameters (minOnHandQty, staleDaysThreshold) have only schema descriptions. Given 50% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the key parameters.

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: 'Flags slow-moving/dead stock by on-hand quantity vs. days-since-last-movement.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_goods_movement_history and get_stock_overview by noting its dependency on pre-calculated movement age and its live stock pull from get_stock_overview.

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?

Explicitly tells the caller that movement age must be provided via a map and warns that get_goods_movement_history cannot be used as a source because it lacks a date field. This guides the agent on when to use this tool and what inputs are required.

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