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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. It adds a key behavioral requirement: confirming the profile with the shopper before showing products. While it implies an AI-driven process, it doesn't detail side effects or limitations, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 sentences with no filler. Core purpose stated first, and the required confirmation step is front-loaded as a separate sentence. Efficient and clear.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides essential behavioral context (confirmation) and the core function. It does not explain return format, but that is covered by the output schema. The missing explicit alternative routing is a minor gap given the tool's clarity.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting skin_description is free-text, which is already in the schema. It doesn't clarify how goals and avoid interact with matching logic, but the schema provides a sufficient baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's core function: building an AI skin profile from free-text and returning matched sponsored products. It distinguishes itself from siblings like routine_builder and sponsored_search by focusing on profile-driven product matching, and includes a mandatory confirmation step.

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?

Provides a critical usage instruction (confirm profile with shopper before showing products) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sponsored_search or state when not to use it. The description implies it is for skin profiling and product matching, but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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