get_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the estimate is a 'naive-baseline' with 'raw provenance' and that estimated_state is 'unknown' below 2 distinct purchase dates. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'get stock' description, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only safety or other caveats.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, no-arg behavior, and item-specific behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema present). The description covers both invocation modes, provides usage context (before add_items), and includes a behavioral nuance about provenance. There is no obvious missing information for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage and only lists a nullable item parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining the two modes: omitting item returns all items, providing item returns a baseline estimate. It also hints at the required name format ('reuse exact names'), adding value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: provides a current stock estimate, with explicit behavior for both no-argument (list all items) and with-item (get estimate) modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_items by including a cross-reference to call it before adding items.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: call before add_items to reuse exact names, and the two invocation modes (no arg vs. item name) are clearly described. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, including a relationship to a sibling.

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