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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail — the editorial rule for which URLs get cited — but says nothing about whether citations are persisted, how the limit interacts with ranking, or what the returned payload looks like.

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?

It is short — two sentences — and the purpose line comes first, so nothing is bloated. But the second sentence is telegraphic to the point of being hard to parse, mixing product names, slug identifiers and a negation in one line without structure.

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 an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain returns or safety. What it still lacks is its place in the workflow relative to the retrieval siblings and any clue about how the examples generalize beyond the two listed garments.

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 100% and both parameters are documented with defaults and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description nudges above that by showing concrete topic values ('jupe cuir', 'chemisier satin') that illustrate the format of the topic parameter, which the schema only gestures at with a generic example.

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 opening line says the tool selects which ScoreLook URLs to cite, which is a verb+resource pair, but it largely restates the name cite_sources and adds only the 'ScoreLook' qualifier. The rest is dense domain shorthand ('fond-de-jupe-jupon-sous-jupe', 'pas les hubs cuir génériques') that does not clarify what the tool actually returns or how it differs from get_piece_hub or search.

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 two examples encode a source-selection preference (lead with a specific article plus the topical hub; avoid generic hubs for the wrong category), which is useful curation policy. However, there is no guidance on when to call this tool at all, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many siblings (get_piece_hub, list_piece_hubs, search, fetch) that an agent must choose between.

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