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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is informational and that the return includes availability plus a dispatch window, but it says nothing about what happens for unknown SKUs, out-of-stock items, or whether the call has any side effects. The safety profile must be inferred from 'Returns', which is a real but thin signal.

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, with the action trigger front-loaded before the return description. Every clause adds information and there is no 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: when to call it and what it returns. Only the parameter format and edge-case behavior are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema only tells the agent that product_id is a required string. The phrase 'for one SKU' usefully confirms the parameter identifies a single item rather than a list, but no ID format or example is given, so the description only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 result: availability and the dispatch window for one SKU. An agent can distinguish it from create_order or quote_order by the fact that it only reports stock status. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger condition ('before you promise a delivery date') and an example user question ('will it arrive before X'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.

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