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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it validates colour existence and stock, prices the blind, and returns a summary for create_cart, implying it does not itself create the cart. It does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects or is read-only, but the 'pass directly into create_cart' phrasing gives strong evidence of its non-mutating role.

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 four sentences, each conveying essential information: core purpose, validation behavior, output usage, and a practical caution. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or filler text.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value ('configuration summary to pass directly into create_cart') and the validation side-effect. It covers the essential flow (validate → price → return summary) and the prerequisite check_colour_stock. It does not elaborate on optional parameters, but those are fully documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by grouping parameters into a 'full blind specification' and explaining the purpose of mount type ('inside recess or outside face-fix'), but it does not detail optional parameters like finish, province, or quantity that are already well-described in the schema. Thus it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Lock in') and resource ('full blind specification'), and enumerates the key attributes (product, dimensions, colour, mount type). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it returns a configuration summary for create_cart and references check_colour_stock as a prerequisite.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call check_colour_stock first if availability is uncertain,' and indicates the output should be passed to create_cart. It implicitly differentiates from get_price by focusing on full specification and validation. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so slightly below a 5.

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