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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the prerequisite inventory plan and enumerates the returned row fields, which helps an agent understand what data comes back. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but the schema covers pagination parameters.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the returned row shape before the prerequisite and endpoint. Every element earns its place, though the 'GET /finished_goods' endpoint is marginally redundant.

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 enumerated return fields are valuable and make the tool's output shape understandable. The prerequisite and pagination via the schema round it out; the main remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness defect.

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 all seven parameters, including the three enum parameters, are already documented. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Finished-goods stock rows') and enumerates what each row contains (recipe, quantity on hand, unit, packages, lot-code settings, sizes, value). It is clear enough to distinguish this listing operation from a single-record fetch like recipal_get_finished_good, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs an inventory plan.' There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus recipal_get_finished_good, recipal_get_inventory, or recipal_list_inventories, nor any when-not guidance.

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