flowers

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations, including the per-ZIP/per-date granularity and the same-day ordering cutoff in the recipient's local time zone. No return format or edge-case behavior is described, but for a simple availability check this is not a major gap.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. The primary function is front-loaded, followed by the key scoping distinction and the operational cutoff. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only availability check with two fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the granularity of availability, and the key same-day rule. The return value is reasonably implied by 'check whether... is available,' and no output schema exists to demand more.

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 fully documents both parameters and their formats. The description reinforces the semantics ('US ZIP code', 'given date') but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the same-day cutoff is operational context rather than parameter syntax.

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 names a specific action ('check whether florist delivery is available') and a precise resource/scope ('US ZIP code on a given date'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from arrangement-level questions by stating availability is 'per ZIP and date, not per arrangement,' which separates it 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: checking delivery availability for a ZIP and date, and it warns that same-day delivery has a cutoff. It provides a when-not signal via 'not per arrangement,' but it does not name explicit alternatives such as 'use search_arrangements for arrangement-specific delivery details.'

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.