list_stock_adjustments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List/search" implies a read operation, but it discloses nothing about pagination behavior (skip/count hint at paging), result limits, ordering defaults, or auth requirements. For a 12-parameter query tool this is a notable 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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful.

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 list tool with 12 params, 83% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return shape/pagination expectations that an agent would benefit from, but the rich schema compensates for most parameter-level gaps.

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 83% (high), so the schema already documents nearly all parameters including enums and filters. The description adds nothing beyond "optional filtering," so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search/list) and resource (stock adjustments), clearly distinguishing it from get_stock_adjustment and upsert_stock_adjustment by the plural/list framing. However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from siblings in the text itself.

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?

"with optional filtering" implies it's a query tool but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like get_stock_adjustment for a single record. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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