Warehouses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination, result size, freshness semantics, or how it differs from the detail sibling. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 and front-loaded, so there is no bloat to trim, but the single sentence carries almost no informational payload. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined writing.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. The remaining gap — differentiating it from warehouse_details — is real but minor given the low complexity.

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?

There is only one parameter (fresh) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema stating it skips the local cache. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3.

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?

"Warehouses of the business" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the name and title, with no verb and no indication of whether it lists all warehouses, filters them, or returns a single one. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as warehouse_details, warehouse_documents, or product_stock_history.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer warehouse_details instead, or what prerequisites apply. Only the phrase "of the business" weakly implies a business-scoped listing, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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