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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are guaranteed 100% in-stock, and the mandatory agent instructions define expected output content (sizes, shipping SLA, return policy, specs table, base vs. checkout links).

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 main description is compact and front-loaded, and the mandatory instructions are structured and purposeful. Every sentence contributes operational detail, from stock verification to link formatting.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete: it defines both input modes, the in-stock guarantee, and the exact post-result obligations. No critical calling information 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the OR relationship between handle and occasion+gender and the semantic difference between complementary items and full occasion looks; page and page_size need no extra explanation.

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 states a clear operation ('Get complete recommended outfits') and specifies two input modes: product handle for complementary styling, or occasion+gender for full looks. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling looks.curation.by_occasion, which appears to cover the same occasion mode.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use context by describing the two invocation patterns and giving example occasions. However, it never mentions alternatives or exclusions, so an agent is left to infer when to prefer looks.curation.by_occasion instead.

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