get_stock_by_warehouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Consulta', implying no side effects, and mentions internal table joins ('Cruza la tabla MULT[EE] con ALMACENES[EE]'). However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are expected for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose, one for implementation detail, and a clean Args list. It front-loads the main purpose and scope without any fluff, and every sentence 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 an output schema exists, return format is not the description's responsibility. The description covers all parameter semantics, scope, and a high-level idea of the underlying joins. It is missing edge-case details (e.g., behavior for invalid article codes) but these are not essential for selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: cve_art is the article key in SAE catalog, cve_alm is a numeric warehouse key with behavior (if omitted, returns stock in all warehouses), and empresa is a company key. This adds meaning beyond the plain schema types and defaults.

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 ('Consulta'), a clear resource (existencias y stocks mínimo/máximo de un producto), and a scope distinction ('en un almacén específico o en todos'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_warehouse_summary (which is warehouse-level, not product-level) and get_product_kardex (which is movement history, not current stock).

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 usage for querying stock by product and optionally warehouse, but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides context on the scope (all warehouses if cve_alm omitted) but no exclusions or guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool.

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