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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond these annotations, merely restating the input criteria. It does not disclose additional traits such as recommendation count, sorting, or response structure, but the output schema likely covers return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and the resource, then enumerates key input dimensions. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a rich input schema (7 params, all documented) and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description provides a clear summary of the tool's purpose and key inputs. It could add more context about when it's preferable over search_products, but given the schema richness, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description lists several parameters (intent, budget, recipient profile, room type, lighting) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It omits locale and country, but the schema fully documents these, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get personalized product and variant recommendations' with specific input criteria (intent, budget, recipient profile, room type, lighting). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products, which likely performs keyword-based search rather than context-driven recommendations.

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 implies usage when personalized recommendations are needed based on customer intent and other criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_products). There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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