get_stock_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that from_date is informational and that company falls back to a configured default. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or return format, but for a read operation these are less critical. The info-only caveat is valuable behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a compact Args block. It front-loads the main purpose and packs parameter semantics into a structured list with no fluff. Every sentence and field earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the return format is covered elsewhere. The description clarifies the aggregate nature, the default company behavior, and the informational status of from_date, which are key to correct invocation. It lacks prerequisites or edge-case handling, but for a simple read tool with optional params, this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: company gets a default-behavior explanation, from_date gets an ISO format plus an informational-only caveat, and to_date gets an ISO format. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema, which only lists names and types.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregate stock summary across all items for a company'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_stock_items by emphasizing 'aggregate' and 'across all items', making its scope unambiguous. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 tool is for when an aggregate summary is needed, and it provides a usage note that from_date is informational only. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_stock_items or other alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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