list_inventory_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'retrieves' signals a read-only operation, and it adds useful behavioral context: optional filtering, pagination, and the kinds of inventory details returned. It does not mention ordering, end-of-pagination behavior, or explicitly state that no mutation occurs, but it is adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first sentence front-loads the main action and filtering capability, and the second adds pagination and returned detail types. It does not repeat parameter names or schema content.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it retrieves, filtering, pagination, and output content. It does not describe the exact response shape (since none is provided) or explicitly state the default/max limit values, which are in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions SKU filtering and pagination, which loosely correspond to sku_filter, limit, and cursor, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The schema already documents defaults, max values, and filter semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: 'retrieves a list of inventory items' with optional SKU filtering and pagination, and it clarifies what data is returned (quantities, costs, locations). The plural 'list' and its scope distinguish it from the sibling get_inventory_item, even though it does not name the alternative explicitly.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need a list of inventory items, possibly filtered by SKU, with pagination support. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_inventory_item for a single item or browse_products for product browsing, leaving the selection to inference.

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