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 one genuinely useful piece of context beyond that — the inventory-plan prerequisite — plus the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about not-found behavior or what the row contains.

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?

Three terse fragments, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the prerequisite, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter read with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus a prerequisite an agent would otherwise miss. Only the failure/empty-result behavior is left unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Finished good row id.' with a positive-integer constraint. The description's 'by id' adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so 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 (implicitly 'get') and resource ('one finished-goods stock row') scoped by id, which clearly separates it from recipal_list_finished_goods. The scope word 'one' is doing the sibling-differentiation work, though it never names the list tool explicitly.

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?

'Needs an inventory plan' implies a prerequisite context for use, but the description never states when to pick this over recipal_list_finished_goods or what to do if the id is unknown. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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