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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating the returned measures (quantity, reserved, available), explaining that expand=[variant,office] enriches with names, and disclosing the pack-filtering caveat.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: returned fields first, then filter options, then the expand modifier and endpoint. Every clause carries actionable information and the payload is front-loaded.

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-parameter read tool with no required params and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to filter, and how to expand relations — enough to call it correctly. It leaves default sorting and the no-filter fallback unstated, but those are minor.

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 only 43%, and the four undocumented parameters (code/barcode/office_id/variant_id) are all explained in prose, including the non-obvious pack interaction between variant_id and office_id. The remaining gap is limit/offset, which the schema already documents.

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 its granularity (stock per variant and office) plus the exact fields returned (quantity, reserved, available), so an agent can immediately separate it from bsale_list_variants or bsale_list_products. It also pins the underlying endpoint, GET /v1/stocks.json.

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 states the supported filter dimensions (office, variant id, SKU code, barcode) and gives a concrete conditional rule: for a pack, pass a variant filter plus office_id. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it never names an alternative sibling or a when-not condition.

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