flowers

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: availability depends on ZIP and date, and same-day delivery has a cutoff in the recipient's time zone. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scope clarification and a practical rule. No redundant or filler 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?

The tool is simple with two fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not state the return format (e.g., boolean or availability details). For a read-only check, this leaves some ambiguity about the response shape.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (zip pattern and date format with local-date semantics). The description adds the same-day cutoff constraint tied to the date and clarifies that availability is not per arrangement, giving extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: checking florist delivery availability for a given US ZIP and date. It further distinguishes itself from arrangement-related tasks by noting availability is per ZIP/date, not per arrangement, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like search_arrangements.

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 states the tool is for checking availability per ZIP and date, explicitly excluding arrangement-specific availability, which signals when not to use it. It also provides the same-day cutoff rule (before 2 PM recipient local time). However, it doesn't name the sibling tool for arrangement-specific checks, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: opening the link adds the arrangement to the cart and opens the cart panel, and the customer completes checkout. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects on the user's session.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then explains conditional behavior. It is slightly long but every sentence adds meaningful information about the link's behavior and the checkout flow.

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 a tool with no output schema, the description explains what the return value contains (purchase link plus price breakdown) and the conditional additions. It also covers the downstream effect of opening the link. It does not specify the exact format of the link or breakdown, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and understand the result.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about how zip and date affect the breakdown (exact delivery fee, tax, order total, delivery availability), which is useful but not essential since the schema already covers the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return'), a specific resource ('purchase link for an arrangement'), and adds a price breakdown, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_delivery and search_arrangements. The title reinforces the purpose without being a tautology.

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 explains when to include a ZIP and a date, and implies the tool is for generating a purchase link rather than checking delivery or searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: returns up to 20 matches, orders by best match first, and discloses exactly what each result contains, including the total_before_tax calculation (price plus $19.99 delivery fee). This is substantial beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences: the first states the purpose and filters, the second covers result composition and pricing semantics, and the third states the result cap and ordering. There is no redundant or filler content; 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by defining the key return fields, the pricing semantics, the 20-result limit, and match ordering. All 7 optional parameters are already documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotence. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only search tool.

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 high (86%), and the schema already documents each parameter with known values and formats. The description mostly restates the filter dimensions at a high level and adds the pricing formula that clarifies the 'budget' parameter semantics. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Find flower arrangements in The Flowers Directory catalog') and enumerates the main filter dimensions. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that results include the product code needed by check_delivery and get_checkout_link, making its role as the catalog search step clear.

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 clear context for when the tool should be used: whenever an agent needs to find or search catalog arrangements. It implicitly routes the agent to sibling tools afterward by stating the result contains the product code they need. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a search-vs-delivery/checkout distinction.

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