get_consignment_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It clearly conveys a read-only checking operation and specifies exactly which stock states are covered. It does not describe response format or scope limitations, but for a simple query tool the core behavioral intent is transparent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, names the resource, and enumerates the relevant statuses without filler. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, but the description only covers the high-level purpose. It does not explain what the returned counts look like, whether results are filtered by date or warehouse, or how the two required parameters should be supplied. This is enough to recognize the tool but not enough to invoke it confidently in all cases.

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 needed to explain business_client_code and sku, but it does not. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no real semantic detail about what values are expected, how they relate to the stock counts, or any format/combination requirements.

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 action ('Check...counts') and a specific resource ('stock sent to a Jumia warehouse'), and enumerates the status categories covered (received/quarantined/defective/canceled/returned/failed). This is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_stock tool.

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 intended use case is implied by the 'consignment' framing and the list of status counts, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as get_stock or update_stock, so an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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