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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the 'live' qualifier, implying a current, timing-sensitive stock/price read, and there is no hint of mutation or destructive behavior. However, it omits response shape, failure behavior, currency/units, and any side effects beyond the read.

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 short clause with no filler; the core action and target resource are front-loaded. This brevity is appropriate for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description conveys the essential purpose well. But without an output schema or annotations, it leaves unspecified return format, error behavior, and the distinction from sibling lookup tools, making completeness only moderate.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter, sku, fully and even provides an example. The tool description merely reiterates 'SKU' without adding new parameter details, so it adds little beyond the schema. The high schema coverage supports the baseline score.

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 that the tool returns live stock and price for a SKU, naming both the resource and the kind of data returned. It is conceptually distinct from the catalog/product siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use check_stock versus get_product, list_products, lookup_catalog, or search_catalog. The description only states what the tool does, leaving selection decisions to inference from sibling names.

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