check_multi_item_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'check', implying a read operation, but does not disclose return format, whether stock is real-time, or any side effects. The term 'cash-and-carry' is not clarified, leaving the behavior vague.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly states the action and scope in minimal characters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the result looks like and any limitations. It does not describe the response format (e.g., per-item availability, errors for invalid item numbers) or mention batch size limits, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'multiple items' to itemNos and 'single store' to storeId, but this is already evident from the schema property names. It does not explain array constraints, maxItems, or any value formats, adding minimal meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and a clear resource: 'cash-and-carry stock for multiple items at a single IKEA store'. It distinguishes from siblings clearly by limiting to a single store and multiple items, unlike compare_store_stock (multiple stores) or check_store_stock (likely single item).

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 phrase 'multiple items' and 'single IKEA store' provide clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_store_stock or find_best_store_for_item. While there is no explicit exclusion or naming of alternatives, the context is unambiguous.

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