Stock Journal Tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the 50-entry limit and the types of changes, and the optional filter. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'View' implies it), nor does it describe pagination or output format. Given the presence of an output schema, some of this is covered, but the read-only nature is only implied.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the detail about the 50 most recent changes and types is concise. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior: what is shown, the limit, the types, and the filter. Since an output schema exists, the return structure is handled. The only minor gap is an explicit statement that the tool is read-only, but 'View' implies that. Overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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% – the 'product' parameter is described as 'Optional product name or ID to filter by.' The description adds a sentence 'Optionally filter by product,' which is redundant. The description does not add meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (View) and resource (recent stock transaction history), and lists the change types (purchases, consumption, transfers, inventory corrections). This distinguishes it from other stock tools like stock_overview_tool which likely shows current stock levels. Clear and specific.

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 implies usage when you need recent transaction history, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like stock_overview_tool or stock_search_tool. No exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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