get_goods_movement_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses the tool's current behavior: it raises an error due to missing date field and uncertain CDS view. This is highly transparent.

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 front-loads the critical information ('BLOCKED') and efficiently explains the reason, with no wasted words.

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?

For a blocked tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the blocking reason and error behavior. However, it lacks parameter-specific details for material and warehouse.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for date_from/date_to (stating they are unsupported). Material and warehouse parameters lack any semantic explanation, so the description only partially compensates.

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 explicitly states the tool is BLOCKED and explains why, making the purpose clear despite the tool not functioning. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a blocked tool.

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 clearly indicates that calling the tool currently raises an error, so agents should avoid using it. However, no alternative tools or explicit 'do not use' directive are provided.

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