list_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about live queries and no caching, and the read-only nature is obvious from 'list'. It doesn't mention output format, but for a simple list tool that is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations (none 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 front-loaded with purpose and the live-query advantage, followed by concise parameter explanations. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Format is clean and easy to scan.

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 simple listing tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics thoroughly. An agent has enough information to call it correctly, and the sibling list provides context for specialized queries. No missing critical details.

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 fully explains both parameters: location and category are optional case-insensitive substrings, with examples and the 'omit for everything' default. This goes beyond the bare schema and provides complete usage semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (pantry), and clarifies it reads live from Grocy. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_stock_entries by presenting itself as the general, always-current listing. Clear and unambiguous.

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?

Implicitly tells when to use it (whenever current stock is needed) and explicitly dismisses cache concerns by stating it queries live each call. However, it does not name alternatives like expiring_soon or below_min_stock, nor state when not to use it. Adequate but could be more explicit about routing to specialized siblings.

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