get_stock_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by stating 'fast' and 'current' and specifying the 'assortment id -> stock' mapping. However, it does not disclose return structure, pagination, or handling of zero-stock items, leaving some behaviors implicit.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping option. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. The mapping format is stated, but without an output schema or annotations, details about the exact response format and coverage are left 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the sole parameter store_href, and the description's 'optionally for one warehouse' adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Limit to one warehouse (meta href). Omit for all.' Baseline 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 identifies a stock report keyed by assortment id with optional warehouse scoping. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_stock or get_stock_by_store, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 a quick current stock snapshot and mentions the optional warehouse filter, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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