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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are site-scoped, and unknown reserved quantities come back as null rather than fabricated — an important data-trust detail.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first routes usage, the second defines the returned data, the third states a null-handling guarantee. Front-loaded with the decision context and free of 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 does describe the returned fields (stock, thresholds, usage, incoming orders, reserved quantities) reasonably well. However, for a six-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the omission of parameter and pagination semantics leaves the definition only partially complete.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at site scoping (locationId) and part lookup (partId/query) but says nothing about pagination (page, pageSize) or assetId, leaving several filters ambiguous.

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 specific resource and scope: 'Read site-scoped stock and reorder thresholds with recorded usage and incoming orders', reinforced by the title about stock and incoming orders. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_asset_details or list_due_maintenance, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use this when identifying stock shortages or checking a part before requesting replenishment' gives a concrete triggering situation and a downstream workflow. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming the replenishment tool (e.g., draft_purchase_requisition) by name.

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