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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses pricing, payment behavior (omitting x_payment returns requirements without charging), and the output format. It adds context about the report including 'honest confidence' and candidate conflicts. No contradiction with annotations; the English-language claim contradicts the schema's language enum but that is a schema conflict, not an annotation conflict.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and return format, then quickly covers target audience and pricing. It is efficient with three sentences, each serving a purpose. While a bit dense, it does not waste words and is easy to scan.

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 description lacks essential usage context: it does not state that images are required for a meaningful report (schema has no required fields), nor does it clarify behavior when no images are provided. It also omits error conditions or what happens with invalid input. The language discrepancy (English-only claim vs ja support) further adds confusion. Given 8 parameters and no output schema, more guidance is needed for an agent to call this correctly.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only mentioning 'pass pack_code' which is already in the schema. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., image_url vs image_base64 alternatives, or mutual exclusivity of payment methods) beyond what the schema already states.

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 generates a client-ready PDF report with style analysis, including palette, outfit formulas, and draping boards, and returns report_pdf_base64 and full profile JSON. It is specific about the deliverable, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative like style_profile. A minor inconsistency: the description says 'English PDF report' while the schema allows language='ja', which could mislead an agent about supported languages.

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 provides context ('For agents serving human end-clients') which implies it is for final client-facing output, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It also covers payment options (pack_code vs flat fee) but does not clarify prerequisites or edge cases like when to use style_profile for the underlying analysis.

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