check_product_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that it checks availability and returns stock quantity, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose error handling, behavior when product is not found, or any side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 short sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives usage context, and the third states the required parameter. No fluff or repeated information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose and when to use it. It lacks mention of edge cases or fallback behavior, but the simplicity and output schema lower the burden. It is nearly complete for its scope.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats that 'The product ID is required', adding no meaning about what the product ID represents, its format, or how to obtain it. This is redundant with the schema's required field.

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 clear verb ('check'), a specific resource ('product'), and the result ('available stock quantity'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like check_account_status or list_customer_orders.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this when a customer asks whether a particular product is in stock', which provides clear context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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