Check store stock

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

Description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: mentions return contents (stock status and product details) and the default store behavior. Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, so this supplemental context is appropriate and not contradictory.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, args, returns in four lines. No filler or redundant explanation beyond a useful summary.

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 read-only two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, required/optional inputs, and return type. It does not specify exact stock status values or error cases, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the optional storeId default and an example article number. The description's Args section largely restates schema info without adding new semantic details.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'stock at a Vinmonopolet store'. It distinguishes from sibling search/config tools by focusing on checking availability for a specific article at a specific store.

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?

Description provides context that the tool is for checking stock and clarifies that storeId defaults to the home store. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the intended use is clear and no exclusions are needed given the sibling tools' distinct purposes.

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