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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying constraints: it never provides exact copies or invented SKUs, and it emphasizes criteria-first ordering. This is valuable and consistent with the read-only nature.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key criteria, followed by a critical constraint. It is efficient with no filler, though it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from constraints.

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description only partially explains them. It omits usage guidelines and does not clarify each parameter's purpose. While an output schema exists (so return format is not required), the description is insufficient for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps some parameters to concepts: 'matière' for material, 'couleur (famille, pas un fourre-tout)' for color, and 'associations' possibly for piece or occasion, but it does not clarify query, season, or occasion. The description adds partial meaning but leaves several parameters undocumented.

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 the tool provides shopping criteria: 'Je donne les critères' (I give the criteria) and enumerates specific aspects (material, cut, color family, associations, avoid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shopping_search or recommend_look, which serve different purposes.

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 description implies usage context with 'Critères d'abord' (criteria first) and the constraint about never giving exact copies or invented SKUs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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