sku_full_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that calls are made in parallel and returns all states at once, but does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the SKU does not exist.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key composite nature and use case. Every word adds value, with no 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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but indicated). The description covers its primary purpose and advantage over sequential calls. It does not list the 5 states, but that may be detailed in the output schema. Overall, it is sufficient for this context.

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 only parameter 'sku' is described in the schema as a string. The description reinforces that it's for a single SKU, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on format or validation, meeting the baseline.

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 explicitly states 'fetch ALL 5 quantity states for a single SKU in parallel' and presents it as the preferred tool for checking stock of a SKU. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sku_quantity_available, which fetch individual states.

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 is described as the 'PREFERRED tool for answering 'How much of SKU X do we have?'' and contrasts with making 5 sequential calls. This gives a clear use case but does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as when only one state is needed.

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