store_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear this is a stock lookup and explains the default location behavior for the near parameter, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds necessary meaning, especially since the input schema lacks field descriptions.

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 moderately simple lookup tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and all parameter semantics well. It leaves out explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools and read-only confirmation, but these are minor gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: product_id as a product uid, store_ids as cost-centre ids from find_stores, and near as a town/postcode that checks nearby stores by default. It also clarifies the precedence between store_ids and near.

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 returns in-store stock for a product, with a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like product_detail or find_stores, but 'in-store stock' is distinct enough for an agent to understand the purpose.

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 usage by explaining when to use store_ids versus near, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as product_detail or find_stores. Usage guidance is present for parameter selection, not for tool selection.

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