Suggest a reorder

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by defining which items are included (at/below minimum) and exactly how quantity is calculated. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and efficient, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The formula is presented clearly and the read-only modifier is a single useful word. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with no input parameters, the description fully explains what it does, what data it considers, and the formula for output quantities. The output schema exists to describe return structure, so the description does not need to cover that. No meaningful context is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description explains the internal data inputs used (lead time, average daily sales, on-hand quantity) even though they are not user-supplied parameters. This is more than adequate for a parameterless 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 states a clear verb and resource: suggest reorder quantities for items at/below minimum. It also gives the exact quantity formula, distinguishing it from generic stock viewers and order-creation tools. The read-only note reinforces that this is an advisory, not a mutation, 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 phrase 'What to reorder now' clearly signals when to use the tool: during reorder planning. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_purchase_order_draft or get_low_stock, but the read-only designation and focus on suggested quantities imply its role versus sibling tools. Some explicit exclusion guidance would improve it.

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