Расчёт пополнения

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming in domain terms that the tool 'does not order anything or create a supply', and by framing the result as a 'local forecast'. It does not disclose calculation details or output behavior, but the safety profile is well covered by annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, input instruction, and safety constraint. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 calculation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain the formula, units, semantics of safety/lead time/availability/inbound, or the shape of the returned result. An agent would need substantial external knowledge to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to parameters via 'balances, demand, and timeframes' (stock, orders, periodDays), but it leaves inbound, leadTimeDays, safetyDays, and availabilityDays unexplained. With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient for reliable parameter selection.

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 identifies the tool as a local replenishment/forecast calculation based on explicit stock, demand, and timeframes, and explicitly states it does not order or create supply. It lacks a direct action verb like 'calculates', but the title and content convey the purpose. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'local' and 'does not order/create supply'.

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 gives actionable usage guidance: pass values from WB with consistent periods. This tells the agent the expected inputs and their alignment requirement. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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