Stock level for one product

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it can match by different identifier types and it asks which one when multiple matches exist, which is non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise not know. It does not address auth, rate limits, or no-match behavior, but those are less critical given the simple read operation and the presence of an output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core output front-loaded and the disambiguation behavior in the second sentence. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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 low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete for correct invocation. It covers what the tool returns, how the product is identified, and the ambiguous-match behavior. The only possible gap, no-match handling, is likely covered by the output schema or can be reasonably inferred.

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, and it does: it explains that the single "product" parameter can be a name, product code, or barcode. This is essential semantic information beyond the schema's bare string type. It does not fully specify format rules, but for one parameter the meaning is sufficiently conveyed.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns "On-hand quantity and days of cover for a product." It also specifies the lookup modes (name, product code, barcode) and explicitly signals that it asks for disambiguation when multiple products match, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that surface lists or summaries.

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 title and description make clear this is for fetching stock level for a single product, and the search-by-identifier wording implies when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like get_low_stock or suggest_reorder, and offers no exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings.

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