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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds real context: fixed page size of 50, the underlying GET endpoint, and the exact fields returned. It does not discuss rate limits or ordering, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight, front-loaded block: scope first, returns second, filters third, endpoint last. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical '(50 per page)' and trailing endpoint are slightly crammed into one run-on structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and notes page size, giving an agent enough to interpret results. Pagination mechanics are delegated to the page parameter's schema description, which is acceptable.

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 100% with two enums already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the filter dimensions (EAN/title, stock level, stock type, quantity range) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (FBB/LVB inventory) and immediately scopes it: 'not your own stock'. The returned fields (EAN, title, regular/graded stock, stock level) and the underlying endpoint make the operation unmistakable and separable from siblings like bol_list_offers.

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?

Explicitly states the applicable domain (FBB/LVB inventory only, excluding own stock), which is the key selection criterion. It does not name an alternative tool for non-FBB stock, but no sibling covers that case, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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