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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are meant to be proposed to the user and piped into another tool. It doesn't mention result-set size, empty-catalogue behavior, or whether labels fall back, but the added cross-tool context is real.

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-loads what the catalogue is and its fields, then the usage rule, then the raw argument example. Dense and purposeful, though the trailing JSON argument blob sits awkwardly after prose.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by listing the four returned fields. For a read-only, zero-required-param catalogue with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (empty results, pagination) is absent.

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 reported at 0%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it only partially does by supplying an example invocation with client_id and lang:'fr'. The nested schema actually carries decent field descriptions, so the description's example adds marginal value rather than filling a gap.

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?

Names the resource specifically (outfit catalogue of ready outfit photos) and enumerates the returned fields: id, label, audience, image URL. It implicitly separates itself from the actor/camera-moves/operations catalogues via the 'outfit' qualifier, but never names a sibling or explains the distinction explicitly.

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 trigger condition ('when the person wants an outfit from the catalogue') and a concrete prescription ('Propose 2-3 with their image link'). It also routes the agent forward, showing exactly how the result plugs into kelpo_expert_prepare via actors[].wardrobe with mode=catalog.

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