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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful fact that results are per period and what measures are aggregated, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default result shape, or what happens when accounting_period is omitted (that caveat lives only in the schema).

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is well-sized for the amount of information conveyed, though it could have spent one more clause routing to the sibling.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the filters, the fields returned, and period scoping. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter, including the important accounting_period default. The description introduces Czech field names (stavMJ, rezervMJ, dostupMj) that are not mapped back to parameters, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 stock cards') and enumerates the returned measures (stavMJ, rezervMJ, dostupMj per product/warehouse). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling abraflexi_list_stock_movements, leaving the agent to infer which one it wants.

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?

Usage is only implied through the filter parameters (product_code, warehouse_code, max_on_hand); there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over list_stock_movements or list_products. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite guidance is given.

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