get_stock_adjustment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions, pagination, whether it returns full or partial data, or error behavior for missing IDs. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core action is immediately clear.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional 'include' parameter, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what fields are returned, what 'include' does, or failure behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 50%. The required adjustmentId parameter is documented in the schema itself ('The stock adjustment ID'), but the optional 'include' parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds no detail about what 'include' accepts or what adjustmentId format is expected, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for partial 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get details of a specific stock adjustment.' This clearly identifies a retrieval operation and distinguishes it from mutation siblings like set_stock_adjustment and upsert_stock_adjustment. It doesn't explicitly name the list sibling get_stock_adjustments, but the singular/plural naming and 'specific' qualifier make the scoping reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes list_stock_adjustments, set_stock_adjustment, and upsert_stock_adjustment, and the description gives no indication of when this single-record fetch is appropriate versus listing or mutating.

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