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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the returned content shape (stock level per variant per store) and the upstream endpoint (GET /inventory), which matters given there is no output schema. Pagination behavior itself is left to the schema's cursor/limit descriptions.

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 compact sentences: the core purpose is front-loaded and the filter hint plus endpoint reference follow without padding. Nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema.

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, optional-argument list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filterability, and upstream source, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It could say slightly more about result granularity when no filters are supplied, but the schema carries the remaining detail.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including limit bounds, cursor, and ISO timestamps. The description only echoes the store/variant filters and adds no new syntax, format, or defaulting detail, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 current stock (`in_stock`) per variant per store') with the granularity (per variant, per store) made explicit, which cleanly separates it from siblings like loyverse_list_variants and loyverse_set_inventory_levels.

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 a concrete use scenario ('the answer to "what is running low?"') and explains that results can be narrowed via store/variant filters, which tells the agent when this tool fits. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., no contrast with the setter tool).

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