check_availability

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 discloses the return format (quantities in bags/pallets per location) and the behavior when parameters are omitted (returns all in-stock products). While it implicitly indicates a read-only operation, it does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, which would be expected for a perfect score.

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 delivered in two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It includes necessary details about parameter usage and return format without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior: what is checked, what is returned (quantities per location), and how to filter results. It may lack some finer details (e.g., whether zero-stock locations are included), but for a simple stock lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides basic descriptions for product_id and product_slug, but the description adds crucial semantics: the parameters are alternatives, and omitting both returns all in-stock products. This goes beyond the schema's simple note that product_slug is an alternative to product_id.

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 checks product stock across warehouse locations and returns quantities per location, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like search_products and get_prices, which are about searching and pricing rather than stock availability.

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 clear usage context: pass product_id or product_slug for a specific product, or omit both for all in-stock products. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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