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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the collection has no server-side filter, the whole collection is downloaded and filtered client-side, it consumes one of 300 collection reads per hour, and results can hit the 50,000 character cap on large accounts. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before calling.

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?

One dense paragraph with the resource definition, the caveat, and the routing advice front-loaded; almost every clause carries information. It is longer than typical and somewhat run-on, but not padded.

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 supplies the row shape and key quantity fields, plus the rate-limit and result-cap constraints that determine whether the call is viable. No blocking gap remains for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: product_id and facility_url are applied after download (not server-side), and facility_url values come from finale_list_facilities. The remaining parameters (limit, fields) are left to the schema.

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 entries' / inventoryitem) and defines exactly what an entry is: product, location, lot and order with quantityOnHand, quantityOnOrder and quantityReserved. It also contrasts itself against finale_get_product_stock, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling aggregate tool without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent: use finale_get_product_stock for per-product totals, use this tool and pass product_id or facility_url to narrow the full-collection download. The condition selecting this tool versus the alternative is stated, not inferred.

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