get_stock_ledger

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 discloses exact match behavior and a fallback suggestion, but does not mention whether it is read-only, any ordering, or other side effects. With output schema present, basic behavior is covered but could be more explicit.

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 short and front-loaded with the key purpose in English, followed by a critical usage hint in Chinese. It is concise without being terse, though the multilanguage structure could be more organized.

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 presence of an output schema (context indicates 'has output schema: true'), the description need not detail return values. It covers core purpose, exact match requirement, and a fallback tool. Minor omissions like pagination order or safety are forgivable for a simple query tool.

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% with descriptions for each parameter (e.g., limit default 50, item_code optional exact filter). The description adds beyond schema by emphasizing exact match on item_code and advising use of find_items if no match, adding practical semantics.

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' with explicit context 'inventory transaction history' and 'exact match on item_code'. It distinguishes from siblings like find_items and get_stock_balance by emphasizing exact matching and the fallback advice.

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 provides clear guidance: use exact match on item_code, and if not found, switch to find_items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings like get_stock_balance, though the transaction history scope is implied.

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