get_stock_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Get' implies a read, but there is no statement about permissions, whether 'details' includes lines/locations, or error behavior for an unknown ID.

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 zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 fetch tool with no output schema and one entirely undocumented parameter ('include'), the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how to expand it. As written, an agent cannot tell what 'details' means or how to shape the response.

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 only 50%: stockCountId is documented in the schema, but the 'include' array has no description anywhere and the description does not compensate. It adds no meaning about what fields are expandable or what the ID format looks like.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific stock count'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_stock_counts or upsert_stock_count, so the agent must infer the singular-vs-list distinction from the name alone.

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 phrase 'a specific stock count' weakly implies use when you have a single ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of list_stock_counts as the alternative for enumeration. The agent is left to infer routing from the tool name.

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