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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it explains that non-stock-tracked lines are deliberately excluded and why (reporting them would invent a shortage), and that results are per-outlet so the same variant can be empty in one shop and full in another. It also discloses result ordering (lowest first).

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-loads the answer ('What is running out') and each subsequent sentence carries distinct content: scope, default behavior, exclusion rationale, outlet granularity, alternative tool. It runs slightly long — the triple phrasing of the same intent and the exclusion justification could be trimmed — but nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned lines (variant/outlet), the cutoff condition, and the sort order. Combined with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 limit, outletId and threshold are already fully documented, including the default 5 and the threshold:0 convention that the description repeats. The per-outlet explanation ('the same variant can be empty in one shop and full in another') adds genuine interpretive meaning to outletId, but overall the description mostly restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 outcome ('What is running out... Returns the stock-tracked (variant, outlet) lines at or below a threshold, lowest first') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_stock for single-product lookups. An agent can identify the tool's output shape and scope without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit user-intent phrasings ('what is low', 'what do I need to reorder', 'what has run out at the warehouse'), the threshold condition that selects each case (default 5 vs threshold: 0 for zero-stock), and names the alternative for a narrower question ('For one specific product use get_stock instead'). Only hub_get_reorder_suggestions is left unmentioned as a possible overlap, which is a minor omission against otherwise complete routing guidance.

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