merit_list_inventory_movements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the endpoint, date constraints, and enum values, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, defaults, or authentication. The unmodeled 'Type' parameter also adds ambiguity about how filtering is expressed.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose and endpoint before enumerating parameter constraints. There is no redundant prose; every sentence adds actionable detail.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical call details: endpoint, required date range, dateType semantics, and the intended Type semantics. It is missing only minor behavioral context such as response format and defaults.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats schema information and adds a 'Type' mapping, but 'Type' is not present in the input schema, which could lead an agent to pass an unsupported or named-mismatched parameter. This ambiguity prevents the baseline from holding.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Merit Aktiva inventory movements'), and the exact HTTP endpoint (POST /api/v2/getinvmovements). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as merit_create_inventory_movement and merit_get_inventory_report without requiring schema inspection.

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 clear context: use this tool when the need is to list inventory movements, with explicit constraints on periodStart/periodEnd (ISO format, max 3 months apart). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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