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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating what the answer contains: a dress/skirt route, a trouser/suit route, what to avoid, and neighbouring codes — effectively describing the response shape in the absence of an output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that declares the purpose first and the output contents second, with no trailing filler. The long parenthetical code list is somewhat heavy but serves recall and does not bury the main clause.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the input domain, gives example values, and outlines the four parts of the answer. Only the absence of sibling routing and any input normalization note keeps it from being fully 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% for the single required 'code' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical list of codes (smart casual, black tie optional, etc.) broadens the agent's sense of accepted values beyond the schema's two examples, but adds no format or normalization 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Explain what a dress code on an invitation means') and enumerates concrete code examples, so the agent knows exactly what is being interpreted. It implicitly separates itself from list_dress_codes and suggest_outfit by describing an explanation rather than a listing or an outfit proposal, but never names a sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('on an invitation'), giving the agent a reasonable context for when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement against the four sibling tools, so selection still requires inference.

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