search_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral context by stating that returned quantities are 'current' and naming the returned fields. However, it does not describe search matching behavior, pagination, company scoping, or response structure, so behavioral coverage is only partial.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource and includes only the essential distinguishing details. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 relatively simple search tool with no output schema, the description names the key return fields and the schema covers filtering and limiting parameters. It is adequate for invoking correctly, though it could be slightly richer by noting that results form a list and how search_term matching works.

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 75%, with limit, category, and search_term already explained in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mostly describes output fields. The undocumented company_id is self-explanatory by name and required status, so the baseline 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 action ('Search') and the resource ('stock/inventory items'), then enumerates distinctive result fields: current available quantity, rates, HSN, and UQC unit. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling search tools like search_ledgers, search_invoices, and search_challans.

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 use case is implied by the phrase 'Search stock/inventory items,' so an agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative or exclusion, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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