inventory_get_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its operational behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key elements like 'current stock levels' and 'across warehouses.'

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which is incomplete for safe and effective tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the two parameters ('product_ids' and 'warehouse_id'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get current stock levels for products across warehouses.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('stock levels'), and scope ('products across warehouses'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inventory_list_products' or 'inventory_list_warehouses,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'inventory_list_products' (which might list products without stock) or 'inventory_list_warehouses' (which might list warehouse details), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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