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 adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the newest-first ordering ('as Linnworks returns it') and the exact fields returned. Pagination mechanics are left to the schema.

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 sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is information-rich but readable; the trailing API path is minor overhead.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering, and the schema fully covers pagination and filters. An agent has enough to call and interpret the result, though no detail on empty-history or error behavior.

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 every parameter (page, per_page, location_id, stock_item_id) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the location scoping and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-level change history of one product') and enumerates the returned fields (date, new level, change quantity, value, note). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_stock_levels, which reports current levels rather than history.

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 notes the optional single-location scoping versus combined results, which implies when the location_id path is relevant. However, it never explicitly contrasts with get_stock_levels or set_stock_level, so selection guidance is only implied.

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