list_user_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing items but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'stocked' means operationally. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'stocked' means, how results are structured, or any error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a user-specific scope ('by a specific user'), which aligns with the 'user_id' parameter but doesn't enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('List') and target ('items stocked by a specific user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_user_items' or 'list_item_stockers', which could cause confusion about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_user_items' and 'list_item_stockers' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or which scenarios warrant its use over others.

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