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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the per-variant-per-store granularity and the `in_stock` field name, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether all rows or a page are returned.

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 primary verb+resource claim is front-loaded and the use-case and endpoint follow. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint, the description covers purpose, filtering scope, and the key returned field. There is no output schema, but it hints at the return shape well enough; only pagination/multi-page behavior is unstated.

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, and the baseline is 3. The description echoes the store/variant filtering but adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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') plus the underlying endpoint (GET /inventory). The list-vs-write distinction from the sibling loyverse_set_inventory_levels is immediately inferable from the naming and the read framing.

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 clear use case — 'the answer to what is running low?' — and explains the store/variant filtering axes. It stops short of naming loyverse_set_inventory_levels as the write counterpart or stating when this should not be used, so no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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