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

With readOnlyHint=true the safety profile is covered, and the description adds substantive behavior: the resolution precedence chain (product row → product 'ALL' → account default region → account default 'ALL'), the meaning of source=null (no recommendation), and region 'ALL' semantics. It doesn't describe pagination totals or return envelope, but the resolution model is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single dense run-on packed with internal jargon (own/resolved/source/paramsComplete) that is harder to parse than it needs to be. Most clauses earn their place, yet the structure could be broken up for readability.

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 7-param tool with no output schema, the description explains the return shape inline (own values, resolved values, source provenance, paramsComplete, velocity/FBA stock) and covers the resolution logic and 'ALL' region, so an agent knows both what it gets and how to interpret it.

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 71% and already documents region, reason, search, accounts, and missingOnly. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: what region 'ALL' actually lists (product × 'ALL' rows where a production lead time lives) and that missingOnly filters on RESOLVED parameters resolving nothing. limit/offset are only touched by 'Paginate with limit/offset'.

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+resource ('get_stock_worksheet' → one region's replenishment worksheet = Data Inputs 'Stocks' page rows) and defines the row grain as (account, ASIN). It clearly differentiates itself from the *_worksheet siblings (cogs, fbm, vat, tags) by naming the exact page and the resolution semantics it returns.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('match a seller's lead-time file to exact ASINs before import_stock_params') and a conditional behavior (missingOnly=true keeps products that resolve nothing). It ties sequencing to import_stock_params, but doesn't explicitly say when to use a different worksheet tool instead.

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