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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the 'LIVE' signal (real-time, not cached) and the row-level granularity definition, which are genuinely useful additions. It omits rate-limit behavior and pagination/cursor semantics, which matters for a catalog-wide query.

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?

One tight paragraph with the safety/source status front-loaded, followed by output shape then filtering modes. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 takes on the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the columns per row and the grain. Remaining gaps are minor but real: no statement on catalog-wide pagination beyond the limit cap, and no mention of what is returned when a sku/product_id matches nothing.

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 only 20% (limit alone is documented), but the description compensates by explaining the roles of product_id, sku, and low_stock_threshold — including the subtle 'at or below it (or out of stock)' semantics. store_id is left unexplained but is unambiguous from the woo_list_stores sibling; only the default/cap on limit is absent from the prose (it is in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stock of WooCommerce products/variations') and defines the output grain precisely: one row per sellable item with the named fields. It is clearly distinguishable from woo_list_products (catalog listing) and woo_update_stock (mutation), and the supported selectors are enumerated up front.

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?

Explains the three query modes (by product_id, by sku, or whole catalog) and when the low_stock_threshold filter narrows results to at-or-below items or out-of-stock. It does not, however, name alternatives such as woo_list_products or explain what happens if product_id and sku are supplied together.

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