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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data reach are covered. The description adds that data is 'real-time' and that it covers two fulfillment channels, which is useful, but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or why a channel might be missing.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, and the item_no clarification trailing. No filler, though the second sentence largely repeats schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations plus a 100%-covered two-param schema handle the rest. The description is complete enough to call correctly, missing only channel-level caveats.

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 both params are already documented, including the item_no example and the country default of 'us'. The description only restates that item_no is IKEA's own number and omits the country parameter entirely, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 resource (one IKEA item's stock) and the exact signal returned (real-time home-delivery and click-and-collect availability for a country). This clearly separates it from siblings like ikea_product (details) or ikea_search, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by 'stock signal for the requested country' and 'real-time', so an agent can infer this is the stock-check tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as ikea_product or ikea_stores.

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