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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds little. However the description discloses substantive behavior beyond annotations: a ranked shortlist with confirmed capability first, the `providers_searched` field for honest coverage reporting, and the crucial semantics that an empty result is not proof of nonexistence (echoed in warnings).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the imperative and scope come first, then the sibling contrast, then defaults and return semantics. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though a stray trailing artifact and the redundant 'Read-only.' sentence are minor waste.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract (ranked shortlist, providers_searched) and the empty-result interpretation, which is exactly what an agent needs for a 9-parameter open-world search tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the default provider scope and when to override it, the role of accepts_photoreal as the 'can this design go on this thing' filter, and the rationale for include_unknown's default. This goes beyond restating the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: searches EVERY fulfillment provider on the account for garments matching a capability. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling browse_catalog ('what does THIS provider carry' vs 'what on this ACCOUNT can take this design'), so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit imperative when-to-use ('USE THIS BEFORE TELLING A USER AN ITEM CANNOT BE BUILT'), the reasoning behind it (capability limits are provider-scoped, not category-scoped), the named alternative browse_catalog, and the condition for narrowing scope via `providers`. Nothing is left to inference.

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