Check Home Depot Canada store availability for a SKU

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 explains the return values (store name, address, phone, coordinates, stock level/status, aisle/bay, pickup status) and sorting (in-stock first). It also notes that nearby stores are derived from postalCode or storeId, with override logic. No destructive actions are implied, and the read-only nature is clear.

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: the first defines the tool's action and output, the second provides a use case. It is front-loaded with essential information, contains no filler, and is optimally concise.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description adequately covers return fields, sorting, and parameter interactions. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficient for typical use.

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 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default for storeId (7074) and explaining that postalCode overrides storeId, which is not in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter relationships.

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 checks in-store stock for a SKU across a store and nearby stores, returning detailed per-store information. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('in-store stock of a Home Depot Canada SKU'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings (hd_product, hd_search, hd_stores).

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 explicitly advises using the tool to answer 'which store has this in stock near me', which gives clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply those boundaries.

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