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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the color-family discipline (aqua stays light/cool, no drift to black satin) and the explicit fallback path (limits[] + look éditorial when a shade is absent from the catalog). It stops short of explaining what "à surveiller" means or how limits[] is surfaced.

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 action and followed by the constraint and the fallback. Dense but not padded; the only drag is the unexplained "à surveiller" fragment, which reads as clipped rather than efficient.

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 return shape needn't be spelled out, and the fallback behavior is covered. What's missing for an 8-parameter styling tool is routing versus the weather/shopping siblings and clarification of the "à surveiller" output element, leaving the definition adequate but not complete.

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%, so every one of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only oblique parameter context (the aqua/color-family rule) and otherwise describes the output composition rather than enriching parameter 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?

"Je compose une silhouette complète" gives a specific verb+resource and then enumerates the composition (look nommé, capsule pièce/ancre/chaussures/sac/bijou). An agent can tell it produces a styled outfit, but nothing distinguishes it from sibling recommendation tools like recommend_weather_look or shop_the_look.

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 sentence says when to pick this over recommend_weather_look, shop_the_look, or shopping_search, despite those siblings sitting squarely in the same styling space. Usage is only inferable from the description's existence, and the fallback rule (teinte hors catalogue) describes behavior, not selection criteria.

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