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 is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: each response carries an image that must be displayed with its link, and the depicted pieces are illustrative rather than purchasable products — a distinction that prevents the agent from treating output as catalog data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output-handling guidance and the crucial non-product disclaimer. No filler and every sentence contributes distinct information.

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, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needs to add what structured fields cannot: how to render the response and that the garments are not real products, both of which it does. The main gap is the absence of sibling routing in a tool family full of look-related alternatives.

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 each of cuir, slug and sujet documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about filtering by leather, slug lookup, or subject search, so it does not improve on the structured fields.

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 ('Je montre mes planches lookbook') and enumerates the board contents (silhouette, front/back pieces, palette, accessories, tip, checkpoint), so the agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It implicitly separates itself from shopping siblings by stating the pieces are illustrative drawings, not products for sale, though it never names recommend_look or shop_the_look explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus recommend_look, recommend_weather_look, shop_the_look, or search, despite a crowded sibling set where routing matters. The only guidance is a negative hint ('ce ne sont pas des produits en vente'), which discourages shopping use but does not route the agent anywhere.

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