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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: it is free with no account, payment, or credits required, and responses include a source URL. It stops short of describing result structure or rate limits, but covers the main behavioral questions.

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?

Front-loads the cost/auth facts, then use cases, then scope exclusions, with no filler. The terse, semicolon-heavy opening is dense but still readable and appropriately short for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two-parameter read-only guidance lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough: cost, auth, languages, source URL in results, and scope limits. The main missing piece is fuller semantics for the topic enum, which would complete the picture.

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%: locale is documented in the schema, but the topic enum values are not explained anywhere. The description adds only indirect hints about topic choice ('understanding the Gravitate rubric', 'methodology before ranks') and mentions English/French, but does not clarify values such as 'developers' or 'attractiveness'.

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 and resource ('Retrieves published English/French guidance') and scopes the subject matter to dating-profile photos and the Gravitate rubric. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it 'Does not inspect images', which separates it from score_photo_observations.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (choosing dating-profile photos, understanding the rubric, asking about authentic image improvements) and clear exclusions (no image inspection, no general relationship/reconciliation advice). It adds sequencing guidance ('Choose methodology before supplying ranks') but does not name sibling tools as alternatives.

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