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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: prices are in MAD, delivery is across Morocco, and product images must come from this tool's image_url/Image lines rather than any other source — a non-obvious constraint worth calling out.

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 sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second carries the mandatory image rule. No filler, though the first sentence is a long stack of parenthetical product types that 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers currency, occasion vocabulary, delivery region and the image constraint; only paging/limit behavior and the language default are left to the schema, which is acceptable for a 4-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 50%: lang and budget are documented in the schema, while limit and occasion rely on enum values alone. The description adds a useful occasion-to-holiday mapping (Valentine's Day, Ramadan, Eid, weddings, birthdays) and restates the MAD budget, but says nothing about limit or the default language. Baseline 3 fits.

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 names a concrete resource set (gift ideas: candles, gift packs, flower boxes, holders, wedding favours) plus the budget/occasion framing, so an agent knows this is a curated recommendation endpoint rather than a lookup. It does not name siblings like search_products or get_product to sharpen the boundary, but the gift-idea scope is distinctive enough in practice.

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?

Usage is implied ('within a budget in MAD, for occasions like...') rather than stated as when-to-use versus when to call search_products. The one explicit directive is an output-handling rule about images, not a routing rule. No exclusions or prerequisites such as budget minimums are given.

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