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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the endpoint mapping and the asset-vs-bulk distinction, but says nothing about result volume, pagination limits, or how the two modes alter the returned shape. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 what a stock level is before the routing advice and endpoint citation. Efficient, though the endpoint tail is arguably redundant given the tool name prefix and the schema already carries the filter example.

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 six-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: what a 'stock level' actually represents. Pagination and nesting are handled by the schema, so nothing critical 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 page, per_page, sort, filters, include and product_id are all documented in the schema — including the same asset_number_eq filter example. The description's parameter content duplicates rather than extends the schema, 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 ('List stock levels') and then disambiguates what a stock level is — serialised assets (asset number, serial number, location, store) versus bulk quantities — which no sibling name conveys. It also cites the backing endpoints (GET /stock_levels, GET /products/{product_id}/stock_levels), letting an agent map it against current_rms_list_product_inventories.

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 routing guidance: 'Pass product_id for one product's stock, or use filters such as {"asset_number_eq": "ABC-1234"} to find an asset.' This tells an agent the two main usage modes. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer current_rms_list_product_inventories), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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