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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: a cost of $0.05 per try-on and the asynchronous execution flow with a generation_id. This gives an agent accurate expectations about side effects and follow-up steps without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, cost, and the critical async pattern, all front-loaded with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an async generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: what it does, what it costs, what it returns, and how to retrieve the final result. It doesn't discuss failure modes or image constraints beyond the schema, but the core usage loop is complete.

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%, with both person_image and garment_image clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable but not above the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('Try on outfits virtually') and is clearly not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like ai_dress_changer or ai_outfit_changer, so an agent may struggle to choose among them.

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 gives clear, actionable context: this is a paid virtual try-on tool and it is asynchronous, so the agent knows to poll get_generation. But it never mentions alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over the many related clothing/outfit siblings, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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