Stock y quiebres

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them by describing a reporting tool. It adds useful behavior context: the difference between the low-stock mode and the full Fulfillment panorama with coverage days and breakage risk. It does not discuss pagination or data freshness, but this is acceptable for a read-only stock report.

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?

Three short sentences carry substantial information: mode definitions, the Fulfillment detail, and a clear usage trigger. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only query with zero required parameters, the description plus schema covers the invocation essentials: modes, threshold, account ID, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description states what each mode returns, so the remaining gap is only a lack of example output formatting.

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 67%, with cuenta and maximo described but not modo. The description fills the main gap by explaining what 'bajo' and 'full' modes mean. It also reinforces the threshold concept behind maximo, though somewhat redundantly with the schema.

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 defines two modes ('bajo' for low-stock listings, 'full' for Fulfillment stock coverage with days of inventory and breakage risk) and clearly identifies the resource as stock-related. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate from tools like ml_salud_publicaciones, but the stock/stockout focus makes the purpose recognizable.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Usar cuando preguntan qué se va a quedar sin stock o qué reponer.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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