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

The description adds 'with an audit trail', which discloses a permanent logging side-effect beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lowered, and the audit trail detail plus the restock/initial nuance provide useful context.

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 core description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and clear. The prefixed '[demo: deshabilitada]' is somewhat distracting and not essential, but it does not significantly harm the overall conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how optional parameters like autoCreateProduct or createPurchaseRequest interact, nor the implications of 'audit trail' for the user. This is a complex tool that requires more context than a one-sentence description.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for a fully-documented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Records') and resource ('inbound stock for a product'), and clarifies the scope with 'restock or initial stock' plus 'with an audit trail'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like adjust_stock (which adjusts existing stock) and create_product (which creates products).

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'restock or initial stock' for inbound stock. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, though the context is sufficient for a basic selection.

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