low_stock_report

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds real operational context: it enumerates the entire catalog and that include_variations costs one extra request per variable product. That cost/performance disclosure is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation value expected. It stops short of saying anything about response size or pagination.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the report contains before describing scope and the optional parameter's tradeoff. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation isn't needed, and both parameters are covered. What remains thin is the enumeration behavior under large catalogs — 'walks the whole catalog' hints at cost but doesn't address ordering or limits.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does define both parameters' meaning: threshold as an at-or-below cutoff on tracked stock, and include_variations as per-variation checking with a stated request cost. Only gaps are the default value (5) and that threshold applies only to tracked stock being restated rather than edge-cased.

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 precise resource and filter: published products with tracked stock at/below a threshold plus out-of-stock items, and adds the scope 'walks the whole catalog.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling list_products and get_product.

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 low-stock framing implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison against sibling tools such as list_products. The include_variations tradeoff is the only conditional guidance offered.

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