stock_producto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of the result (total plus a per-warehouse breakdown), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about how the product name is matched (the schema's 'mínimo 2 letras' hints at substring search), what happens if several products match, or what is returned when nothing is found. The trailing 'en voseo' is a response-style note rather than tool behavior.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core question the tool answers. The only questionable element is the 'en voseo' clause, which is stylistic guidance rather than selection-relevant 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential question and the result granularity. A little more on match behavior and the empty-result case would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 there is a single parameter already documented as 'Nombre del producto (mínimo 2 letras)'. The description only restates 'de un producto' and adds no detail about partial matching vs exact name, 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?

The description names a concrete resource (stock of a product) and states the granularity of the answer (total and per warehouse), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like inventario_bajo (low-stock alerts) or precio_producto (pricing). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'how much stock do I have of X'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over inventario_bajo or buscar_producto, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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