check_stock

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('check if available') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, whether stock data is real-time, or any error conditions. The word 'check' implies a read query, but no explicit behavioral details are provided.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no extraneous information, making it exceptionally concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain what the agent can expect as a response (e.g., boolean, stock count) and clarify the optional nature of size/color parameters. It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps in return value and edge-case behavior, making it merely adequate.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (slug, size, color), and the description references 'size/color combination' and 'specific product' which map to these. However, it adds no additional syntactic or contextual meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it earns the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' with a clear resource: 'product size/color combination available at The Bag Kenya.' This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like browse_products, search_products, and get_product, which focus on browsing, searching, or retrieving product details rather than availability checking.

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 implies usage when you have a specific size/color combination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product or browse_products. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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