get_locked_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying GET /v1/products call, the aggregation of locked_inventory_count, and the fact that a direct endpoint does not exist, preventing a 422 error. It also lists the return structure fields, adding operational context like products_scanned. However, it does not discuss rate limits or pagination details.

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 structured with clear sections: purpose, API call, note, and return structure. It is dense but not bloated; the API note adds transparency about implementation, though some may consider it extra. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 zero-parameter read-only inventory tool, the description is complete: it states purpose, method, the quirk of the missing endpoint, and the exact return fields. This provides enough information for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool without external documentation.

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 tool takes no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document. The description adds value by describing the return structure, which helps the agent understand the output even though no parameters exist. This is the expected baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 it gets a list of inventory items currently locked (reserved), with a specific focus on analyzing SKUs with pending shipment reserved quantities. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling inventory tools like get_inventory_overview or 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 usage when an agent needs to analyze which SKUs have reserved quantities pending shipment. It also provides a technical note about the Shopline API endpoint limitation, explaining why the tool exists. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead or provide exclusion criteria, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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