Check RONA online availability for a SKU

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly sets expectations by noting the tool only reports online availability and does not provide per-store data. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or if any side effects exist (likely none). Still, it is transparent about its limited scope.

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 that front-load the main purpose, then add limitation and sibling reference. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately explains its purpose and limitations. However, it omits what the return value looks like (e.g., a boolean or status string). Still, it is mostly complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's built-in descriptions. It does reinforce the SKU example, but that is already present in 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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'RONA SKU availability to buy online'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying online purchasability only and referencing rona_stores for store-level data.

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?

Explicitly states limitations: real-time per-store stock levels are not available. Provides a sibling alternative (rona_stores) for finding stores, guiding the agent on when not to use this tool.

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