get_warehouse_summary

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does frame the operation as read-only by using 'Obtiene' and describes the returned summary/alert behavior, including counts of items below minimum stock. However, it does not disclose permissions, pagination, empty-result behavior, or failure modes, so transparency is only partial.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in two tightly written sentences, followed by a minimal Args section. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and the size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 output schema already covers return shape, so the description need not repeat it; it still adds the parameter meanings and low-stock alert behavior that are absent from structured fields. It is slightly incomplete only where usage differentiation and behavioral caveats are missing, but those gaps are already reflected in the corresponding dimension scores.

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 Args section must compensate. It gives helpful context by naming cve_alm as a numeric warehouse key and empresa as an optional company key, which goes beyond the bare schema. Yet the descriptions largely restate the parameter names/types and provide no constraints, format examples, or explanation of how empresa affects the summary.

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 names a specific verb ('Obtiene') and resource ('resumen cuantitativo y alertas de un almacén'), and enumerates specific outputs such as total de artículos, piezas acumuladas, and low-stock list. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_stock_by_warehouse, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_stock_by_warehouse or list_warehouses. The description gives no scenarios, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, and this gap is material because sibling tools share warehouse/stock semantics.

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