get_product_availability

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: no exact quantities, no branch prices, stock status separate from pickup text, checked_at for freshness, and accent-insensitive local city matching. That is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by terse statements on filtering, exclusions, and freshness. Telegraphic fragments are efficient, though the clipped style makes a couple of sentences ('Stock status and pickup text are separate') require inference.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description does the needed work by sketching what comes back (stock status, pickup text, checked_at) and what does not (quantities, prices). Minor gap in not describing result structure or filtering edge cases more fully.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains city behavior well (matches store name/address locally, ignores accents), but product_id is only obliquely covered by 'one product variant' and its pattern/format is left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource plus a scope constraint: availability for one product variant in Slovakia stores. It is distinguishable from the siblings (search_products, get_product) by being an availability lookup rather than a catalog lookup, though it never names them explicitly.

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 the use case (checking store stock for a known variant) and notes what the result does not contain, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and never references the sibling tools as alternatives.

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