find_stock

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

The description discloses that not all chains support per-store stock queries and that unsupported chains return a clear error. It also mentions that storeId takes precedence over near. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it omits details about response format, rate limits, or authentication.

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 three sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by filtering options and a note about chains. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the main purpose, filtering options, and chain limitations. However, it does not describe the output returned (e.g., list of stores with availability), leaving a gap in completeness.

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 input schema already describes each parameter in detail. The description adds a high-level summary but does not provide new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'stores of a given chain have a specific product in stock'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_stores (which finds stores) and get_product (which gets product info) by focusing on stock availability.

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 provides explicit use cases ('is this product available near Zurich HB?', 'which Coop has item X in stock?') and notes that unsupported chains return a clear error. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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