Check stock risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the tool 'combines current on-hand, recent sales velocity, and supplier lead time into one deterministic projection with an explicit confidence level' and notes that 'the evidence used is included so the projection can be checked without another call.' No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second adds transparency and an explicit alternative. No filler or redundancy — every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect: a deterministic projection, confidence level, data-quality caveats, and included evidence. It also orients the agent relative to sibling tools and explains the need for store authorization. The combination of annotations and description is sufficient for safe invocation.

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%, including details for store_id (optional only if one store is authorized) and lookback_days (default, max, exclusive minimum). The tool description itself does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'SKU at a store' in passing. 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 states a very specific purpose: 'Assess whether a SKU at a store will run out before closing today, and whether a replenishment order would arrive in time.' This clearly identifies the verb (assess) and resource (stock risk for a SKU/store), and distinguishes it from siblings like korral_list_recent_sales by explaining what evidence it includes.

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 explicitly names korral_list_recent_sales as an alternative when the user needs individual transactions, and the store_id parameter in the schema points to korral_list_authorized_stores. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, exceeding the minimum.

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