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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation listing items with prices, but lacks details about response format, sorting, or pagination. Basic transparency is provided.

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 (one Hungarian, one English) with zero waste. Every word is functional. Front-loaded with the action and scope.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the items listed and that they come with retail prices. It could mention that it is a full list, but the context signals (sibling tools) help differentiate.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying the types of items (standard doors/windows and sills) and that prices are included. Baseline for no params is 4.

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 it lists current ready-stock items (standard doors, windows, and sills) with retail prices. The verb 'list' and resource 'inventory' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like check_stock or confirm_quote.

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 usage for viewing all stock items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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