get_stock_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies a read-only operation but provides no additional context about response structure, pagination, permissions, or data scope. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should clarify what the caller receives. It states 'current balances' but does not specify whether the output is a single value or per-warehouse entries, nor any limitations. For a simple read tool with two parameters, this is mostly adequate but leaves ambiguity about return format.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters fully, with descriptions indicating they are GUIDs (Ref_Key) for warehouse and nomenclature. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema is self-sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves current stock balances of goods in warehouses for 1C/BAS, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that handle catalog and document operations.

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 and tool name clearly indicate this is for querying stock balances, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the context to be inferred.

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