Stock: get

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

The description fully aligns with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive) and adds valuable context: the output fields (quantity, is_unlimited, is_multiple, is_out_of_stock), the cache behavior, and the formula for available quantity ('submitted/edited minus reserved'). No annotation contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and output, plus one sentence for alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides key details. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, behavior, output fields, and alternative. It could mention error scenarios or rate limits, but annotations already cover safety. Slight gap in explaining item_ids reference (assuming listings), but overall complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the return structure and the computation of 'available' quantity, but does not enhance parameter definitions beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Reads current stock'), the resource ('listings in the warehouse'), and provides the function name and alternative tool ('To change stock, use stock_update_stocks'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the mutation tool.

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 explicitly tells when not to use the tool (for changing stock) and directs to stock_update_stocks. It also explains optional strong_consistency parameter and cache behavior, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not contrast with other read tools like items_get_items_info, which might also provide stock-related info.

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