coronium_get_pool_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a significant behavioral trait: 'Returns 503 if the pool tier is not enabled on this deployment.' However, it does not describe what a successful response looks like or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). This is minimal but honest.

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: the first states purpose with a clarifying parenthetical, the second adds a key error condition. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is tightly written and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns on success, but it only says 'live pool stock availability' without specifying the format (e.g., integer, object, list). It also omits any note about authentication, though that may be implicit across the toolkit. For a tool with no other documentation, this is a significant gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is vacuously complete. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no confusing parameter-related content.

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 the tool provides 'live pool stock availability' for the 'Pool Gateway (pay-per-GB)'. The verb 'get' is implied by the name and the description names the specific resource (pool stock) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle buying or session management. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like buying pool or listing sessions. It only mentions the 503 error case but does not explain prerequisites, such as needing a pool tier enabled, or suggest using this before a purchase. No alternative tools are referenced.

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