list_stock_adjustments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them — that results are version-cursor paged — but does not explain what the cursor version refers to, whether results can shift between pages, or limits.

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 compact phrase with the resource and the pagination trait front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is terse to a fault, but structure itself is clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a cursor-paged listing tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves the pagination contract and parameter meanings underspecified. The agent knows what the tool returns at a high level but not how to drive it.

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 carry both parameters. "version-cursor paged" weakly hints that "after" is a cursor, but neither "after" nor "page_size" is explained, and default behavior (after=0, page_size=100) is left to the schema with no guidance on reasonable page sizes.

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?

Names the resource and clarifies what counts as a stock adjustment ("manual corrections, damages, ..."), which is useful since the tool name alone is ambiguous. However no verb is stated and there is no differentiation from the many other list_* siblings; the agent must infer this is a listing call from the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_inventory_levels, get_inventory, or the other inventory-related siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no statement of typical use case.

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