compare_store_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the core operation and store selection modes, but does not disclose return format, sortBy behavior, or what happens if neither storeIds nor countryCode is provided. The required parameter itemNo is not explained, and there is no mention of output structure or edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence provides usage modes without any redundant wording. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the two store selection modes but omits sortBy semantics, default behavior when no store selection is provided, and any performance or output expectations. Sibling tools add context but the description itself leaves too much to 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?

The description adds meaning to storeIds and countryCode by explaining their roles, but it does not explain itemNo (though it's obvious from context) or sortBy. The schema already defines enums for sortBy and countryCode, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more; it partially does but leaves gaps.

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 states 'Compare stock availability for an item across multiple IKEA stores' which clearly identifies the verb (compare), resource (stock availability for an item), and scope (across multiple stores). It differentiates from siblings like check_store_stock (single store) and find_best_store_for_item (best store selection).

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 explicit invocation modes: 'Provide explicit storeIds, or use countryCode' with valid country codes. This gives clear context on how to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like check_store_stock.

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