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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the underlying REST endpoints, which is modestly useful context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination limits, or what 'bulk stock quantities' returns versus serialised assets beyond the initial gloss.

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 resource definition before the usage instructions, with no filler. The trailing endpoint notation (GET /stock_levels or GET /products/{product_id}/stock_levels) is marginally redundant but cheap and accurate.

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 6-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, the two calling modes, and the key filter idiom. Return-shape and pagination expectations are the only meaningful omission, and the tool name plus schema imply a paged list.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces product_id and offers a filter example (asset_number_eq), but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema and its examples already provide.

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 (stock levels), then immediately defines what a stock level is: individual serialised assets (asset number, serial number, location, store) or bulk stock quantities. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_product_inventories and check_product_availability without needing their schemas.

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 concrete usage paths: pass product_id for a single product's stock, or use filters like {"asset_number_eq": "ABC-1234"} to locate an asset. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g. check_product_availability) for the case where an agent wants availability rather than inventory listing.

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