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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are fully covered. The description adds useful output-shape context ("with a line on each"), but says nothing about list length, ordering logic, or how results relate to the requested occasion.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the deliverable ("short edit of perfumes") and appending the output detail. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all parameters. However, for a tool embedded in a large sibling ecosystem with overlapping purpose (wardrobe-composer, compendium-search), the absence of any routing guidance leaves a real gap.

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 all three parameters documented and enum-constrained, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only one marginal clarification, that "occasion" may also be read as season or climate, which explains enum values like summer-days and cold-weather but does not cover lang or gender_lean.

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 concrete deliverable: a short curated list of perfumes keyed to an occasion, season, or climate, each with an accompanying line. It is specific about output shape but uses the jargon term "edit" without definition and never distinguishes itself from siblings like wardrobe-composer or compendium-search.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent choosing among twelve siblings receives no signal about when occasion-edit is the right pick versus compendium-search or wardrobe-composer.

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