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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results reflect a point-in-time work-unit snapshot, and outlet breakdown and aggregation are deliberately absent, which shapes what an agent should expect from the output.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the positive scope stated before the exclusions. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the essential scope and limitation context; only explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other inventory-related views is missing.

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% and both parameters are optional, so the schema already documents 'category' and 'entity_name' semantics fully. The description adds nothing about how these filters interact with the snapshot scope, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads stock and inventory measures for products') plus the scope ('current work-unit snapshot'), which is far more than the tautological title. It does not name a sibling tool, but the negative scope ('no outlet breakdown or aggregation') implicitly separates it from any tool that would offer those views.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate by bounding the data it returns, but it never states an explicit when-to-use condition or names an alternative tool for outlet-level or aggregated inventory. Usage must be inferred from the scope limitation.

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