negative_stock

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

Annotations only cover read-only safety; the description goes well beyond them, disclosing sign conventions, that an empty rate/value is not zero, that no other report is compared, that the result carries a limitations section, and that each call appends metadata-only receipt lines to a local log while writing nothing to Tally. That is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries real information, but the prose is one dense run-on with heavy parenthetical and semicolon chaining, making the key caveats slow to extract. It earns its length on content yet loses points on readability and structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the row shape, sign handling, and empty-value semantics, plus the local receipt-log side effect. What it lacks is a note on ordering, size, or pagination of the returned list for a tool returning an unbounded window of items.

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% and the schema itself already explains the date format, ordering constraint, and the one-financial-year measurement limit. The description only restates the notion of a window, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ("Return Tally's own Negative Stock list for a window") and enumerates what each row contains (closing quantity, rate, value). It implicitly separates itself from stock_summary and negative_ledgers by insisting this is Tally's own negative-stock list, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 strong interpretive guidance ("being listed does not mean the quantity is below zero, so read each quantity", an empty answer is not_established) but never says when to choose this over stock_summary or negative_ledgers. Usage context is implied by the window/company framing rather than stated as a selection rule.

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