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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/destructive/openWorld), it discloses real behavior: the dump includes untracked rows, cannot distinguish 'zero' from 'not counted here', is READ-ONLY with the write-back path via import_stock_csv, and truncates large catalogues with a true row count in the reply. Rich context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with what the file is and its columns before usage guidance. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information (routing, limitations, write-back path, truncation). Slightly long but no filler.

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 compensates by naming the returned columns and covering truncation and the untracked-row caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces single-outlet scope ('ONE outlet') and the output columns but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource+scope: 'The stock export file for ONE outlet, as CSV text,' and then enumerates the exact columns returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling stock tools (get_stock, find_low_stock, get_stock_history).

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('stocktake worksheet, a hand-off to a supplier, give me my stock as CSV') and when-not ('For stock QUESTIONS... use get_stock, find_low_stock and get_stock_history'), naming the alternatives by role. Routing is unambiguous.

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