parts_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the effect of each parameter (e.g., 'Omit to list everything', 'return only parts at or below reorder level'), which is useful. However, it stops short of disclosing other behaviors like response ordering or pagination, though an output schema exists.

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 minimal but complete, with a clear one-line purpose followed by an essential args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no nesting) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for typical lookups. It could be slightly richer on return behavior, but the output schema fills that gap.

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. It does so effectively, explaining that `query` accepts full or partial part names/SKUs and can be omitted, and that `only_low_stock` filters to parts at or below reorder level. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 states 'Look up parts stock,' which clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like jobs_blocked_on_parts, the name and verb make the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains the parameters but fails to mention any scenario, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria that would help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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