get_slow_movers

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It transparently lists the calculation logic, the underlying Shopline API endpoints (GET /v1/products and GET /v1/orders/search), and the return structure. This reveals that the tool aggregates data and is read-only in nature (GET calls), though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior.

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 well-structured with header sections for purpose, API calls, and return structure. It is concise and front-loaded; each section provides essential information without unnecessary fluff. The mild redundancy between the opening line and the 用途 section is negligible.

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 has no output schema, and the description adequately describes the return structure (period, period_days, total_products, slow_movers). It also covers the data sources and calculation method, giving an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool. However, it does not describe edge cases or error conditions, which would elevate it further.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. The tool description mentions the use of start/end dates and the threshold concept, but the schema already explains each parameter's role and the default value. No additional parameter context is provided.

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: identifying slow-moving products with high inventory and low sales. It explains the specific metric (days_of_supply) and the threshold/zero-sales criteria, which distinguishes it from sibling inventory analysis tools.

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?

It gives a clear business context ('協助清倉決策' – assists clearance decisions), but doesn't explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives like get_inventory_turnover. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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