List low-stock products

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description is free to add operational detail — and it does, disclosing the default filtering logic (per-product reorder level) and the sort order (stock ascending). It does not cover pagination or result limits, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The default behavior is front-loaded and the optional override follows, matching the order in which an agent needs the information.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything that matters: selection rule, override semantics, and ordering. No further explanation of return values is needed.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more: it clarifies that threshold is an override of the per-product reorder level rather than an additional filter, which is a semantic distinction the schema's 'Override: units at or below this' only hints at.

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 names the resource (products) and precisely defines the selection criterion: stock at or below each product's own reorder level. The phrase 'need restocking' gives the business meaning up front. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_products, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for restocking decisions, and the threshold parameter is framed as an 'Override'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to reach for search_products or get_product instead.

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