Warehouse document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing further — no mention of cache behavior despite a 'fresh' parameter that implies local caching, and no hint that results may go stale or that the resource may not exist.

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?

It is short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single three-word fragment that omits the operation entirely. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to structure.

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 only 2 parameters, full schema coverage and rich annotations, the structural side is covered, but the description still fails to say what a 'stock document' is, what it returns, or how it relates to warehouse_documents/warehouse_details. An agent cannot confidently route to this tool from the description alone.

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%, with both 'documentId' and 'fresh' (skip the local cache) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the id format or what 'fresh' implies for consistency.

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 'One stock document.' merely restates the tool name/title with no verb, so the agent must infer that this retrieves a single warehouse/stock document by id. It weakly hints singularity ('one') against the plural sibling warehouse_documents, but does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (warehouse_documents for listings). The agent has to guess from the name alone whether to call this or the list variant.

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