lib_check_stock_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check live stock availability' but does not disclose whether this queries an external service, what errors might occur, or how 'live' updates work. There is no mention of the source parameter or any potential side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool appears simple, the description lacks usage context and parameter semantics. It does not situate the tool among its many library-related siblings or explain prerequisites like which component references are expected. This leaves the agent under-informed for selection and 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'refs' as 'schematic references', but it does not mention the 'source' parameter at all, leaving its meaning and default behavior unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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 ('Check') and resource ('live stock availability') for 'requested schematic references'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lib_find_alternative_parts (finding alternatives) and lib_get_bom_with_pricing (BOM pricing).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although the purpose is clear, the description does not mention that this is for checking stock before ordering, nor does it reference alternatives like lib_find_alternative_parts when stock is unavailable. No context or exclusions are provided.

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