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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds useful behavioral caveats: never default to Paris, the city is not stored, and the caller should pass a question parameter. These details inform call behavior and state assumptions without contradicting 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?

The description is only three short sentences and wastes no words. It front-loads the main action, though the cryptic French phrasing ('bulletin', 'pièce tient') reduces clarity despite the brevity.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters, several sibling tools, and a low schema coverage, yet the description omits how to select it versus alternatives and what most parameters mean. The output schema helps, but an agent still lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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?

With only 44% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only hints at 'question' and the location-related caveat, while leaving piece, occasion, transport, at, and location semantics unexplained.

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 conveys that the tool combines a circumstance with a weather bulletin, or judges whether a garment/piece is suitable, which is more than a tautology. However, the phrasing is cryptic ('bulletin', 'pièce tient') and does not explicitly say it recommends a look, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like recommend_look or weather_looks.

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?

It gives a terse instruction to pass 'question=' and warns never to default to Paris, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as recommend_look, get_weather_context, or weather_looks. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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