Query stock levels

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about pagination mechanics, shelf_type values being open-ended, and the sellable stock hint. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but every sentence conveys necessary information: endpoint, response shape, pagination rule, known values, and practical guidance. It is not overly verbose, though the long list of shelf_type values could be shortened, but it serves an open-world hint.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description defines the response format and pagination exhaustion condition. Combined with the detailed schema and annotations, the tool is fully specified for correct invocation. No significant gaps remain.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (limit and cursor), including default values and usage. The description does not add further semantic detail 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 clearly states the tool's function: a cursor-based stock feed across stores, with a specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_products and get_stores by focusing on stock levels and pagination.

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 explicit instructions on how to paginate using the cursor and when to stop (when a page has fewer items than limit). It also notes that sellable stock normally lives on shelf_type 'store', which guides practical usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, though the resource is clear enough.

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