Materialbestand

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful data context, especially the branch grouping and optional below-minimum filter, but does not discuss return shape, pagination, or authorization requirements. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate rather than rich.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main inventory report, and then states the optional filter. There is no wasted text.

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 simple read-only inventory query with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the resource, scope, and filter. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify the default all-branch behavior when the branch parameter is omitted.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references both concepts indirectly: 'je Niederlassung' maps to the branch parameter and 'nur Positionen unter dem Mindestbestand' maps to the boolean filter. However, it does not explain that the branch parameter is optional and defaults to all branches, leaving a semantic gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: it shows stock and minimum stock of consumables per branch. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, but the resource is clearly different from the procurement/complaint/cleaning-plan siblings.

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 states the optional filter for items below minimum stock, which implies a usage context, but it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is understandable but not explicitly guided.

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