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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavior beyond them: the shape of each returned item (unit, quantity, minimum, low-stock flag) and a 100-item ceiling. It doesn't discuss ordering or how the low-stock flag is computed, which is minor given the output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded, then the return shape, then the exclusion. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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 four-parameter, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, return shape, and the nearest confusion case. Nothing an agent needs in order to select or call it 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 each of the four parameters (limit, search, hotelId, lowStockOnly) is already documented with defaults, bounds, and a pattern. The description only hints at lowStockOnly via 'what is running low' and adds nothing about search or hotelId scoping. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Returns ... stock items') and enumerates the domain objects it covers (towels, sheets, toiletries, supplies). It also explicitly disambiguates from the room-availability siblings with 'Not for rooms available to book,' so an agent can separate it from get_hotel_availability without inspecting either 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?

Triggers are stated concretely: 'Use this when someone asks how many towels, sheets, toiletries or other supplies the hotel has left in stock, or what is running low.' The negative case points at room availability. It stops short of naming the write-side counterpart (set_inventory_quantity) as an alternative, but the when/when-not framing is clear.

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