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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds latency expectations (~5-15 s), the internal pipeline (Pl@ntNet + vision model), and the mutually-exclusive input constraint, which the annotations cannot express. It does not discuss failure modes when no match is found.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then mechanism, input options, fallback, and latency. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical about Pl@ntNet is slightly incidental and the sentence could be tightened.

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, the description need not explain return values. It covers trigger, input routing, fallback path, and runtime — everything an agent needs before invoking a 6-parameter, no-required-parameter 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by stating that exactly one of image_file/image_url/image_base64 must be supplied — a cross-parameter constraint the schema cannot express — and by clarifying what image_file represents (the attached photo, auto-filled by the client).

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 (match), resource (bouquet photo), and the concrete outcome: identifying flowers/colours and returning visually similar real offers. This is clearly distinguishable from browse_catalog, get_flower_offer, and search_flower_offers.

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?

Explicitly frames the trigger condition (user provides a bouquet photo and wants similar products) and names a concrete alternative path: if the photo cannot be passed through, call search_flower_offers with a description. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure.

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