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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds language-agnostic query handling and a return summary (ranked offers with price, shop, delivery time, links), but the return shape is already covered by the output schema, so incremental behavioral disclosure is modest.

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 core action and usage triggers, and tightly written. The final sentence restating return contents is largely redundant given an output schema exists, costing a little efficiency.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs that structure does not: when to invoke, the photo fallback path, and the query-language convention.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds a meaningful calling convention beyond the schema by telling the agent to pass free text as `query` in any language and to add structured fields only when known, which clarifies the relationship between query and the structured filters.

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?

Specific verb+resource (find real flower bouquets and potted plants for sale) plus an explicit trigger domain (user asks for flowers in words). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling match_bouquet_photo by stating the condition under which it substitutes for it.

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 concrete usage triggers (flower type, colour, occasion, recipient, budget, delivery deadline) with worked examples, and explicitly states the alternative path: use this when match_bouquet_photo cannot receive the file, describing what is visible in the photo instead.

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