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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavior: results are ordered soonest to run out first, capped at 50 rows, and include totals across all rows. It also explains the possible coverage states and that the tool may report why a state cannot be read. The only vague part is the phrase 'Stock y cobertura reads this,' which adds little behavioral clarity.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the product-level contents and then adds ordering, row cap, and totals. It is appropriately sized for a report tool, though the final phrase is unclear and the state list makes it somewhat packed.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so by naming the key metrics, states, ordering, row cap, and totals. It is nearly complete, but leaves 'production days' and the final source phrase under-explained.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description is misleading about inputs.

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 states the resource and output contents: per-product stock, 14-day sales, coverage days, production days, and coverage state. It is specific enough to understand the report, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_stock_overview or get_restock_forecast.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or sibling alternatives. An agent can infer that this is a stock coverage report, but must guess whether get_stock_overview, get_restock_forecast, or get_inventory_health is more appropriate for a given question.

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