get_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it implies a read operation via 'Get', it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any limitations, permission requirements, or how pagination/filtering behaves. The return content is partially described, but critical behavioral details are absent.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current stock/inventory report') and adds a brief but relevant detail about the contents. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's five parameters, lack of output schema, and the existence of sibling tools with overlapping names, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the output structure, how the grouping/filtering options affect results, or how this tool relates to 'get_stock_current' and 'get_stock_by_store'. The absence of usage guidelines and behavioral details leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage across all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of 'stock_mode' or 'group_by'.

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 'Get' and the resource 'current stock/inventory report', and mentions the specific data fields (quantities, reserves, in-transit). However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named siblings 'get_stock_current' and 'get_stock_by_store', which could lead to confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative stock-related tools such as 'get_stock_current' or 'get_stock_by_store'. The description provides no exclusions or context for choosing between them, leaving the agent to guess.

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