get_stock_ledger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions filtering and a default limit, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Extremely efficient structure: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The description is appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool with three simple parameters.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers the basics adequately. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation in the description. However, for a data retrieval tool that likely returns sensitive inventory transaction data, more context about permissions, result ordering, or error conditions would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential semantic context for all 3 parameters: item_code and warehouse as optional filters, and limit with its default value. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., what constitutes valid item codes or warehouse names) or range constraints for limit.

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 resource ('stock ledger entries/inventory transaction history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_balance (which shows current balance) by focusing on transaction history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list/query tools like get_list_with_summary or list_documents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_balance (for current balances) or list_documents (for general document listing). The description provides basic filtering parameters but doesn't explain the appropriate contexts or prerequisites for accessing ledger data versus other inventory-related operations.

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