ikea_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add genuine context: the data is real-time, the result is a 'stock signal' rather than an exact inventory count, and availability is split across home-delivery and click-and-collect channels. However, 'stock signal' is never defined (boolean? status string?), and there is no disclosure about default behavior when country is omitted or error handling for unknown item numbers.

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?

Three sentences and roughly 40 words with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Minor redundancy exists ('real-time' and 'one IKEA item's' each appear twice), but every sentence earns its place—the third sentence usefully clarifies the item_no identifier.

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 2-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the delivery channels, and the country scope. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description never explains what a 'stock signal' looks like in practice, nor what happens when the optional country parameter is omitted—both of which an agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that item_no is IKEA's own internal item number, which helps distinguish it from SKUs or barcodes, but this largely restates the schema's 'IKEA item number.' The country parameter receives no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Get an IKEA item's real-time stock availability') and goes further to name the exact return type (home-delivery and click-and-collect stock signal) and scope (requested country). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ikea_product, ikea_reviews, and ikea_search without needing to name them.

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?

The usage context is implied: it is the tool to call when you need stock availability for a single known IKEA item in a specific country. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining item_no first via ikea_search), and no named alternatives to route the agent away from.

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