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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's contribution is the extra context it supplies: results are incomplete until a product's quantity has changed at least once, and the date filter has a bounded 31-day window requiring both endpoints. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields, though return shape and pagination behavior are left unaddressed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned quantities before the filtering caveats. The trailing 'GET /stock.' is essentially noise for an agent that has the tool name, but the rest is dense with no filler.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the non-obvious constraints an agent needs to call it correctly. Pagination and sorting are delegated to the schema, which documents them fully, so nothing critical is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the updated_from/updated_to pairing note. The description adds only the 31-day maximum window and confirms the store/product filter semantics, which is marginal value over the schema; 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 and resource ('List stock levels per store and product') and even names the returned quantities (stockAmount, reserved amount), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the close sibling smaregi_list_stock_changes, leaving the agent to infer the difference between current levels and change history.

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 concrete usage context: filter by store or product, and the update-time filter requires both bounds with a 31-day maximum. The caveat that Smaregi only lists a product once its quantity has changed sets expectations about result completeness. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool (e.g. smaregi_list_stock_changes) is provided.

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