get_inventory_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description partly carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the metrics are calculated from the 'quantity' field of product variations, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how missing/invalid variation data is handled, or any performance implications. The description is not misleading but could be more 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and directly states the key metrics and calculation source. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler. This is highly concise 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description lists the expected output metrics. It does not describe the exact response structure or field types, but for an overview tool with minimal inputs, this is acceptable. The brand filter is documented in the schema, so the description remains reasonably complete.

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 100% for the single parameter 'brand', which has a description '品牌篩選' (brand filter). The tool description does not elaborate on this parameter, but the schema already provides basic meaning. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value beyond the schema.

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 function: getting an inventory overview with specific metrics (total quantity, item count, out-of-stock count). It uses a specific verb ('取得') and resource ('全商品庫存總覽'), and the calculation source is identified. This distinguishes it from sibling inventory tools like get_stock_by_warehouse and get_low_stock_alerts.

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 implies use for a high-level inventory summary but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names are provided. The overall purpose is clear, so usage is somewhat inferred, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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