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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds some business-relevant context by saying it does not create a cart, order, or email, which is closer to the user-facing meaning of the safe read-only behavior. However, it does not explain what the validation returns, whether validation failures are thrown, or how results are reported; with annotations already carrying the main safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no fluff: it states what is checked and what is not created. It is concise, though given the complexity of the tool, the brevity could have been organized into parameter categories while still being concise.

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 12-parameter tool with a nested crop object, no output schema, and all 28 descriptors blank in the schema, this description is too bare to let an agent confidently invoke the tool correctly. Missing elements include required fields, validation semantics, rejection behavior, and what a successful result looks like. The negative side-effect statement is useful but does not fill the other gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 12 parameters and a nested crop object. The description only hints at dimensions, material, design type, and repeat, but never names or explains required inputs such as motifId, crop, colorwayId, designType, or revision fields. This is insufficient compensation for an entirely bare schema.

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 says the tool checks whole centimeters, material, execution, and repeat/pattern, and it states it does not create a cart, order, or email. This is a specific validation action with a clear scope, and the negatives help distinguish it from transactional tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives like quote_configuration. The name and description imply validation-before-order, but the description does not state prerequisites, other sibling tools, or exclusions. The only usage signal is the negative statement about not creating cart/order/email, which is more about behavior than routing.

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