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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so safety is covered. The description contributes the non-obvious 'Requires the stock plan feature' prerequisite, but says nothing about pagination, default page size, or what 'on-hand' excludes (reserved, in-transit).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the prerequisite. No filler, though the brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

Five optional parameters with zero schema documentation and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the filtering or paging behavior an agent needs to call it correctly. The plan-feature note is the only added context.

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 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. Only 'for a sheet' loosely gestures at sheet_number; page, page_size, search, and location_id are entirely undocumented in both places.

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 ('List on-hand stock') and scopes it to a sheet, which is enough to identify the operation. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as get_stock_overview or list_stock_movements, which also deal with stock quantities.

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?

No guidance on when to pick this over get_stock_overview (summary view) or list_stock_movements (transaction history). The only conditional statement is a plan-gating requirement, not a use-case rule.

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