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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful context: answers are sourced from the shop's own pages and returned with links, which tells the agent the response is authoritative and link-bearing rather than a generic generation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the coverage list, then the exclusion. The enumeration is long but every item is a distinct routing cue rather than filler, and there is no redundant or decorative prose.

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 the description need not explain return values. For a read-only informational lookup, what an agent needs (when to call it, what topics it resolves, what it does not resolve, and that responses include links) is all present.

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 single parameter (locale) is fully documented in the schema, including its enum values and default. The description adds nothing about locale or language behavior, so per the high-coverage baseline this is a minimum-viable 3.

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?

States a specific resource (Pinflower's own informational pages) and enumerates exactly what it covers: payment timing, delivery area/fees, anonymous delivery and card message, absence handling, returns/complaints, and contact. It explicitly excludes bouquet availability, which cleanly separates it from pinflower_get_bouquet and pinflower_search_bouquets.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the buyer asks how ordering works...') followed by an exhaustive topic list, and closes with a negative scope ('Does not cover bouquet availability') that routes the agent elsewhere. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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