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 value beyond them by naming the required auth scope (READ:PRODUCT) and the backing endpoint (GET /v3/inventories), both of which help an agent anticipate failures. Only the pagination/result-size behavior is 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?

Two short sentences plus a scope and an endpoint fragment — every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess. The most decision-relevant content (what is returned) is front-loaded, with the cross-reference and permission second.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the full type enum, so the agent knows the shape of the response. With annotations covering safety, auth scope named, and the downstream call identified, nothing needed to invoke this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema correctly has an empty properties object at 100% coverage, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies, and the description adds the response field list on top.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource ("List the stock locations (inventories)") and enumerates exactly what each record carries: inventoryUuid, name, type with all four enum values, and default flag. This distinguishes it unambiguously from siblings like zettle_list_products or zettle_get_stock, whose names alone wouldn't tell an agent which returns location data.

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 gives real routing guidance: "Use the STORE inventoryUuid with zettle_get_stock," which tells the agent this tool is a prerequisite/discovery step for a named sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it or how it relates to the other list-style tools, but the follow-on path is explicit and actionable.

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