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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: results are source-checked, they distinguish low fees from refundable deposits, they expose return policies, and they disclose commissionability. This is genuinely useful transparency for an agent deciding how to interpret outputs.

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?

The description is a single, dense, well-structured sentence. It leads with the core action and audience, then packs the key output distinctions without fluff. Every clause adds relevant information.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the target use case, the evaluation criteria of results, and the important financial/return dimensions an agent should surface to shoppers. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is essentially empty, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details, since no input parameters exist. It adds no irrelevant parameter guidance.

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?

The description states a specific action ('List'), resource ('source-checked wedding-dress try-on programs'), and audience ('shoppers without a suitable local rack'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find_bridal_samples. It also enumerates what the results will expose (fees, deposits, return clock, commissionability), making the tool's scope explicit.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: for shoppers lacking a suitable local rack. It does not explicitly mention find_bridal_samples as an alternative or state when not to use it, but the audience condition and the 'at-home' focus provide enough contextual guidance.

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