list_item_stockers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of user objects), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., user objects with what fields?), whether authentication is required, or how errors are handled. Given the lack of structured data, the description should provide more complete context for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (item_id, page, per_page). The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid item_id or clarifying pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 'list' and the resource 'users who stocked a specific item', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_user_stocks' or 'check_item_stock', but the specificity of 'users who stocked a specific item' provides enough differentiation for basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_user_stocks' (which might list items stocked by a user) or 'check_item_stock' (which might check if a user stocked an item). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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