tally_search_stock_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses case-insensitive matching, the reliability caveat (unverified retrieval path), return structure (named properties vs. 'fields'), a prompt-injection warning about text fields, and a server-level read-only statement. This is far beyond typical disclosure and adds significant safety and 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 description is organized with bolded labels and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every paragraph adds value: matching rules, verification status, data safety warning, and read-only guarantee. While longer than usual, it avoids fluff and uses efficient structure to convey necessary caveats.

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 adequately covers return value shape (named properties vs. 'fields') and behavior on empty results, plus error/fallback guidance. It does not explain pagination or total counts, relying on the schema for parameter details, but the overall behavioral picture is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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 tool description reinforces that 'query' is a case-insensitive substring against name/group, but this repeats what the schema already states. It does not add any new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so no score above baseline is warranted.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool finds stock items by matching a search term against name or group, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tally_list_stock_items or tally_get_stock_item. The matching rules are explicitly described, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 provides clear context for usage (substring search on name/group) and includes a concrete alternative (tally_get_company) when the search returns empty, indicating a possible lack of inventory. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with all sibling search tools, but the guidance is practical and directly relevant.

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