check_store_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the action ('check stock availability') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as the return format (boolean vs. quantity), how invalid item numbers or store IDs are handled, or whether it checks in-store availability only. The word 'check' implies a read operation, but that is not confirmed.

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 redundant words. Every word adds meaning, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and param coverage, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., stock count or just in-stock/out-of-stock), nor does it mention the countryCode parameter. While the tool's core purpose is clear, gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'an item' and 'a specific IKEA store,' mapping to itemNo and storeId, but completely omits countryCode. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional nuances, such as what countryCode does or whether it is optional.

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 the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'stock availability' and context 'for an item at a specific IKEA store.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_store_stock (comparing) and check_multi_item_stock (multiple items), making the tool's single-item, single-store scope unmistakable.

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 implies usage for checking one item at one store but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like compare_store_stock or check_multi_item_stock. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the context is only implied, not made explicit.

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