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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds a meaningful privacy guarantee: personal details remain on the server via an opaque token. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant wording. Every sentence adds information: one defines the tool's purpose, the other discloses a privacy-relevant behavior.

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 description is adequate for a simple ask-style tool with strong annotations and an output schema, but it leaves important gaps: optional parameter semantics are undocumented and there is no guidance for choosing this tool over sibling recommendation/search tools.

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 coverage is only 20%, with limit being the only described parameter. The description does not explain detail_level, include_products, include_conversion, or how they shape the diagnosis; it only lists output categories, which is not parameter-level guidance.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it diagnoses a style question and lists the output categories (named look, capsule, watch-items, sources). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like recommend_look or shop_the_look, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. The description implies a use case (style diagnosis) but leaves the agent to infer when to choose this over recommend_look or other style-related siblings.

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