list_warehouse_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or idempotent. It also does not disclose what happens if the warehouse ID is invalid, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a key feature (field filtering) without any extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., whether it's a list of stock items with quantities), which would be helpful. However, the schema covers pagination and field selection details, partially compensating.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema field descriptions; it only reiterates that field filtering is supported. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear and complete.

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 ('List') and the resource ('all products stock in a specific warehouse'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_products' (which likely lists products without warehouse context) and 'get_warehouse' (which retrieves warehouse details). The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 for querying stock in a specific warehouse, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_products' or 'get_warehouse'. It mentions field filtering as a feature but provides no guidance on when not to use the tool or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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