luceed_stanje_zalihe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Stock status' implies a read-only query, but the description says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or the shape of the response. For a 9-parameter query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded with the resource, followed by the modus list. It is efficient overall, though the action enumeration duplicates the schema enum and consumes space without adding meaning.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain the semantics of the eight actions or the return structure. It covers the tool's purpose adequately for a query endpoint but leaves real gaps for a nine-parameter tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters and the action enum. The description merely restates the action values rather than explaining what each action actually does (e.g. skladiste_artikl vs artikl), adding little beyond structured data. Baseline 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 states a specific resource (stock status / availability) and its query dimensions (warehouse, article, barcode, attribute), so the agent knows what it returns. It stops short of differentiating itself from the very similar siblings luceed_stanje_zalihe_dobavljaci and luceed_stanje_zalihe_serijski, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The action list names modes but never says which situation selects which action, nor when to prefer this tool over the serial-number or supplier stock variants. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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