get_stock_transfer

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 retrieval ('Get details'), which is reasonable, but it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens for an invalid ID), authorization requirements, or return shape. It's minimally adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits guidance on the 'include' parameter and behavioral context (auth, errors), leaving gaps that the description could reasonably fill given its brevity.

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 description coverage is 50%: 'transferId' is documented, but the optional 'include' parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 ('Get') and resource ('stock transfer') scoped to a single record, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_stock_transfers. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, but the singular 'specific' vs. list differentiation is clear from the name and description.

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 word 'specific' implies retrieval by identifier, which hints at usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like list_stock_transfers, and no statement of prerequisites or context.

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