get_stock_by_store

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 conveys a read-only operation via 'Get' and states the output (stock quantities per store), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether zero-stock items are included, or response format. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. The second sentence is redundant, rephrasing the same concept, and there is a minor typo ('is is' instead of 'is in'). It could be tightened into a single sentence, but overall it is 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 tool's simplicity and schema coverage, the description is not entirely inadequate, but it omits important context such as how this differs from other stock-related siblings, pagination details, and response structure. With no output schema and no annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 already covers all three parameters (limit, offset, search) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and object: 'Get stock report broken down by warehouse/store.' It also adds detail about the output ('Shows how much of each product is in each store'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock or get_stock_current that may provide aggregate or current stock levels.

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 when a per-store stock breakdown is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Given the existence of sibling tools like get_stock and get_stock_current, this lack of explicit guidance leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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