list_stock_items

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It signals a read operation via 'List', states what the response contains, and documents parameter behavior such as the configured-default company and case-insensitive substring search. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or pagination, but these are not critical for this simple read tool.

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 short, purposeful sections: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by the parameter details. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. The only minor gaps are the absence of explicit sibling differentiation and any mention of pagination or result size, though neither is essential for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description explains both parameters fully: company defaults to the configured company when omitted, and search is an optional case-insensitive substring filter on item names. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stock (inventory) items') and specifies the associated data ('opening/closing quantity and value'). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_stock_summary.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need stock items with quantities and values. The Args section explains parameter behavior, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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