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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool finds and that results are candidates, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as scope limits or how min_locations affects results—though that is documented in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the target data, and the practical outcome with zero filler. Every phrase 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?

With only one optional parameter, no required parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema available, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing critical is missing for this complexity level.

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%, with min_locations fully described including type, bounds, default, and meaning. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('variants'), and a concrete selection condition: out of stock at some locations but available at others. This also differentiates it from sibling inventory tools like run_dead_stock_report or run_stock_velocity by framing the output as transfer candidates.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'candidates for transfers,' so an agent can infer this is for identifying stock-imbalance transfer opportunities. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from the many sibling run_* audit tools.

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