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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context that answers come from the shop's own pages with links, which informs the agent about the response format and source. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, then the exclusion. Zero filler, every clause 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 a read-only informational tool with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key decision factors: when to invoke, what it returns (links from shop pages), and what it excludes. Nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, with the locale parameter fully documented via enum and description. The description doesn't need to add param detail, and it doesn't – a baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the meaning.

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 ('use this when') and resource ('how ordering works'), and explicitly excludes bouquet availability, naming the alternative tool. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pinflower_search_bouquets and pinflower_get_bouquet.

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 explicitly says when to use (buyer asks about ordering mechanics) and when not to use (bouquet availability), pointing to 'search'. This leaves no ambiguity about routing to the correct tool.

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