check_atp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: omitting warehouseCode aggregates totals across all warehouses. However, it does not disclose what the response contains, whether partial shortfalls are reported, or confirm this is a non-mutating read.

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 with zero waste: the first states the verb and resource, the second front-loads the parameter nuance. Every word earns its place and the key behavioral caveat is placed inline where the agent will read it first.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of runtime behavior. It adequately explains the core call semantics but leaves gaps: no indication of return shape, no error behavior for unknown items or insufficient ATP, and no differentiation from get_total_stock, which sits adjacent in the sibling list.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documented parameters. It adds real meaning for warehouseCode by explaining its optionality and aggregation effect, but it says nothing about itemCode or requiredQty semantics, leaving the core of the items array to be inferred from names and types alone.

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 a precise resource ('available-to-promise stock'), expanding the abbreviated tool name and clarifying it is an ATP lookup rather than a generic stock query. The concept of available-to-promise implicitly separates it from the sibling get_total_stock, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives clear operational guidance on the warehouseCode parameter and what happens when it is omitted, which is useful call-time context. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over similar inventory siblings like get_total_stock or predict_stockout, leaving tool-selection to inference.

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