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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the returned data fields and the underlying endpoint (GET /ref/productavailability), which matters because there is no output schema to convey the response shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload before the filtering options, and closing with the endpoint reference. Density is high but every clause carries information; no filler or restated title.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema and no enums, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned metrics and the available filter axes. It omits ordering and pagination caveats, though page/limit are defined in the schema, so the remaining gap is 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 100%, so every one of the 8 filters is already documented in the schema, including the 'starts with' semantics for name and the GUID pattern for product_id. The description's filter list largely restates those definitions without adding format or syntax detail, so the 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 and resource ('stock levels per product, location, bin and batch') and enumerates exactly what fields come back (on hand, allocated, available, on order, in transit, value, next delivery date). This distinguishes it from get_product/list_products siblings, which return catalog data rather than per-location stock positions.

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?

The description enumerates the filter dimensions, which implies how the tool is used, and cross-references cin7core_list_locations for obtaining a valid location name. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus get_product or list_products, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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