get_product_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Vérifier' implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify what is returned (e.g., consolidated stock vs. per-warehouse breakdown), nor how the 'par entrepôt' aspect is handled given only a product ID parameter. This ambiguity is a significant transparency gap.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence that states the core function without unnecessary detail. It earns its place and is easy to scan.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should explain return behavior and the warehouse scope. It says 'par entrepôt' but does not specify whether the caller must provide a warehouse ID or if all warehouses are returned. This missing context makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 already covers the only parameter (id) with a description ('ID du produit'). The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter or its relationship to the warehouse dimension. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Vérifier le stock disponible d'un produit par entrepôt' uses a specific verb ('Vérifier') and clearly identifies the resource (product stock) and scope (by warehouse). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_warehouse_stock and get_product by focusing on product-centric stock lookup.

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 when to use the tool (checking stock availability) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like get_warehouse_stock. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context implicit.

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