Stock Expiring Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is adequate. However, it does not disclose return format details, ordering, or what 'expiring soon' precisely means. Since it's a simple list, this is acceptable but not rich. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage context is a single concise follow-up. Every word 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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the conditions, and a typical use case. It does not explain output formatting, but the output schema covers that. Minor gaps like the exact definition of 'expiring soon' are acceptable 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details. It adds no confusion and the schema is trivially complete.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('products') with clear criteria (expiring soon, expired, below minimum stock). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like stock_overview_tool or stock_search_tool, which serve different purposes. The scope is precise and immediately understandable.

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?

It provides practical usage context: 'Useful for daily checks or deciding what to consume or restock first.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name other tools that might be better for different stock queries. The guidance is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool.

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