List stock entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: returns a compact field set by default, the exact pagination response shape, the 'next_page' continuation mechanism, and that monetary values are integers in cents (150 = 1.50 EUR). This is valuable runtime context the agent would otherwise lack.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds distinct information: domain semantics, filter guidance, field selection, return shape, pagination, and unit convention. No filler or redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's richness.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and a fully documented input schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return structure, pagination flow, default field behavior, and data semantics. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret results without additional lookups.

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 coverage is 100% with informative parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the domain semantics ('Each entry records a new absolute stock level') and the practical effect of position_id filtering ('see one article's history'). It also reinforces how pagination parameters interact with the response.

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 opens with 'List stock entries from easybill with optional filters and pagination', a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies the semantic meaning ('inventory movement log') and distinguishes from the singular sibling get_stock_entry via the list orientation. No ambiguity remains.

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 clearly states a key use case ('Filter by position_id to see one article's history') and explains when stock entries exist (articles with stock management enabled). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_stock_entry for single records, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for listing/filtering scenarios.

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