get_stock_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return', but does not explicitly state safety, error handling, or side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic return.

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 concise: a single sentence stating the purpose and one sentence for usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary words.

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, so the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with the sibling tool, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sku parameter, but the description compensates by providing a concrete example ('ASAFE-BARRIER-01'), which adds meaning beyond the bare string type. This helps the agent understand the expected format.

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 clearly states the tool returns available warehouse units for a specific A-SAFE product SKU, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by explicitly mentioning inventory/stock/availability use cases.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use when the user asks about inventory, stock on hand, or availability'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving sibling differentiation implied rather than direct.

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