list_stock_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but 'List' only weakly implies a read operation. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, result size limits, or whether an empty result is possible – all material for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the tool's scope and returned fields with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the completeness problem rather than a virtue.

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?

Mentioning the returned fields partially substitutes for the missing output schema, which helps. However, the unannotated safety profile and the unexplained 'search' parameter leave real gaps for a two-parameter tool.

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 only 50%, and the undocumented 'search' parameter is left unexplained in the description – no indication of which fields it matches or whether it is a substring or exact match. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List stock items') and enumerates the returned fields (group, base unit, closing quantity/value), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_ledgers and list_vouchers. It doesn't explicitly contrast against list_masters, though the stock-item focus is clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_masters or get_master, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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