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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds crucial behavioral context: results are source-checked but not real-time, and physical availability is emphasized. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set proper expectations.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the core action, second provides an important caveat. No redundancy or irrelevant information. The description is well front-loaded and earns each sentence.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (three optional params, output schema exists, annotations rich), the description covers all essential aspects: what it finds, source-checking, non-real-time nature, and physical availability. No gaps remain for agent decision-making.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds limited extra meaning—tying 'plus-size' to the size parameter and 'US' to state—but does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds US bridal boutiques with physically available plus-size wedding dress samples. Verb 'find' and specific resource are explicit, and the non-real-time caveat adds clarity. No sibling tools exist to differentiate, but the purpose is precise.

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?

Description provides clear context: use to locate source-checked boutiques with available samples. The non-real-time warning and suggestion to confirm before traveling serve as usage guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are needed due to lack of siblings, but the guidance is helpful.

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