Get stock by warehouse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context by naming the underlying collection (ItemWarehouseInfoCollection), which hints at data provenance and result shape, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown item codes or how empty warehouses are handled at the response level.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the qualifier ('from ItemWarehouseInfoCollection'). Slightly awkward phrasing but zero waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the four quantity measures, which is the key thing an agent needs. Missing only edge-case notes (unknown item, empty result set) for a lookup tool that is otherwise straightforward.

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 itemCode, includeEmpty and warehouseCode are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the 'one item / per warehouse' scoping, adding no format, case-sensitivity or default details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource (per-warehouse stock quantities for a single item) and enumerates the returned measures (in-stock, committed, ordered, available), so an agent can distinguish it from get_item. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_item or search_items when the agent has a partial code. Usage is only implied by 'for one item', leaving the agent to infer when this tool beats the broader item lookup.

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