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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states that it checks stock but does not describe what kind of stock information is returned, whether any side effects exist, error behavior, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for an operation that might be read-only but has unspecified behavior.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly front-loaded and has no fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns when checking stock (e.g., quantities, availability flags, low-stock indicators). It also does not mention batch size limits or behavior for invalid SKUs. The tool is simple, but the lack of return value details makes the description incomplete for an agent to know what to expect.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of parameters (skus as a list), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by confirming the tool works with multiple products, which is already implied by the array type. It does not clarify SKU format or special constraints, but the schema already provides the essential type information.

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 ('Vérifie') with a clear resource ('stock de plusieurs produits'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_categories or get_recommendations, which serve different functions.

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 implies usage when stock levels need to be checked for multiple products, which is clear from the purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, nor does it reference sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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