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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral guarantee: all returned looks are verified 100% in-stock and any look with an out-of-stock item is excluded. It also specifies mandatory output behaviors around sizes, shipping SLA, return policy, spec tables, and base vs. checkout links, providing rich context beyond the structured 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 well-structured and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by the stock-guarantee rule, then compact mandatory instructions. Each sentence adds necessary operational detail without repeating schema content.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, full schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: the in-stock exclusion rule, exact link formats, and formatting requirements for return policies. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the occasion enum examples but adds no additional meaning for parameters like age, page, gender, vendor, or page_size beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('complete curated fashion looks') with a well-defined occasion filter, including example occasions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool looks.curation.recommend, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 occasion-specific language makes the primary use case clear: when a user wants curated looks for a named occasion or vibe. The stock-guarantee note and mandatory agent instructions add useful context, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like looks.curation.recommend.

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