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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: heavy throttling at 5/min, the underlying POST endpoint, and that code-based replies are keyed by code. It stops short of describing response shape beyond the field list.

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 front-load the return shape, then the constraints, then the endpoint. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the terse phrasing ('per SKU (or code) the locations with...') is slightly harder to parse than a plainer sentence would be.

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, six-optional-param tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what comes back, the mutually exclusive filters, pagination pointers (in schema), and the throttling ceiling. Missing only explicit sibling differentiation and any note on empty/unmatched results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating skus and codes are mutually exclusive and that the result keying changes with codes — semantics the schema's per-field text does not convey.

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: it returns, per SKU or code, the locations where each product is stored with warehouse code, quantity, and reserve flag. That's a precise picture of the payload. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_warehouse_quantities or get_item_quantities, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

It supplies one real usage constraint ('Filter by SKUs or by codes (not both)') and a throttling warning, which helps avoid a 429. But it never says when to pick this over the near-identical sibling quantity tools, so selection remains inferential.

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