below_min_stock

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 adds meaningful context: this is Grocy's own missing-products calculation, it is blind to products without a minimum, and empty results are ambiguous. It does not describe response format or errors, but for a simple zero-parameter list operation the key behavior is clearly surfaced.

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, each earning its place: the core purpose, the min_stock prerequisite and empty-result ambiguity, and the sibling alternative. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 zero-input, no-output-schema inventory query, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, its limitation, and how to distinguish it from out_of_stock. The caveat about what empty results mean is particularly valuable in a Grocy-specific deployment.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema lists none, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description needs to add; it correctly focuses on result semantics and edge-case interpretation instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List products that have fallen below their minimum stock amount.' This unambiguously defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from related queries like out_of_stock by clarifying that it only considers products with a minimum set.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: only products with a minimum configured via update_product's min_stock are seen, and empty results often mean no minimums exists. It also names out_of_stock as the tool that 'works regardless,' giving the agent an explicit alternative and a clear routing decision.

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