Get MSI Stock Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the prerequisite 'Requires MSI tables', which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss error behavior or return format, but given the annotations cover safety and the output schema exists, the added prerequisite is sufficient to raise it above the baseline.

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 compact sentences. The first sentence states the result and scope, the second gives a prerequisite and an alternative. No wasted words, and the critical distinction is front-loaded.

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 an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, prerequisite, and routing information. An agent can confidently call it for MSI stock queries and know when to use the legacy alternative. Nothing needed for proper invocation appears missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with helpful details (e.g., sku guidance, profile override, stock_id default). The tool description adds 'per source' which hints at response granularity, but this is not directly tied to any parameter. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 verb 'Returns', specifies the resource ('MSI physical qty, reservation offset, and salable qty per source for a SKU'), and differentiates from the sibling find_product_by_sku by noting 'For legacy stock use find_product_by_sku'. This provides precise purpose and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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?

It explicitly states 'Requires MSI tables' as a prerequisite and directs legacy-stock users to find_product_by_sku. The schema for the sku param reinforces this by advising to use find_product_by_sku instead of guessing EAV joins. Clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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