Остатки на складах

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds 'free balances' and 'at a date,' which clarify the data scope, but it doesn't discuss behavior like response shape, default limits, or performance implications. No contradiction with annotations.

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, meaningful sentences: the first states the function and scope, the second gives example user questions. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only query with no required parameters and high schema coverage, the description plus schema gives enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's explicit statement of the questions answered, though the exact row structure is not specified.

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 86%, well above the 80% threshold, so the schema carries most parameter semantics. The description adds little parameter-level detail and doesn't clarify the one undocumented parameter (filial_code), but it doesn't need to repeat what the schema already documents.

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 identifies a stock-balance query tool: free balances per item and warehouse as of a date, and it explicitly states the questions it answers ('how much is left', 'is the item in stock'). This makes the resource and action clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools beyond the 'stock' context.

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 useful usage context for date-based stock inquiries and names the exact questions it answers, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it doesn't say when not to use it or point to alternatives from the long sibling list, leaving exclusion guidance implicit.

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