get_store_availability

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds two non-obvious behaviors: the online warehouse is returned separately, and store prices may differ from the online price. That is useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds information: output scope, returned per-store fields, and online/price caveats. There is no fluff.

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 read-only lookup with two parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all behavioral context needed: scope (city/region/online), per-store data presence, separate online warehouse, and price discrepancy. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the article format and city default. The description does not add new parameter-level details; its references to 'one article' and geographic scope are helpful but already implied by the schema and annotations.

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 leads with a concrete task, 'Where one article can be picked up today,' then defines the result: stock per store, region, and online. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_product (product info) and list_stores (store info without availability).

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 gives clear context: use this to answer where a single article is available today, including local stores, regional stores, and online. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is obvious enough that an agent will not confuse it with the listed siblings.

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