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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses validation constraints ('must be one of'), return content ('product_id with rationale'), and a special routing behavior for security concerns. It doesn't explicitly state non-destructive behavior, but the recommendation nature implies it, so enough context is provided.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, input constraints, optional filters, output, next steps, and a routing exception. No wasted words and the main verb is front-loaded.

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?

For a 5-param tool with no output schema, it explains required input, optional filters, output, workflow, and an exception. Minor ambiguities like the meaning of 'location' and the security routing context prevent a perfect score, but it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description names all five parameters conceptually: primary_concern (with allowed values), room (with examples), location, budget, and aesthetic. However, it omits details like budget format/currency and location values, so the compensation is partial.

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 action: 'Translate a customer's primary concern into a product recommendation' and lists valid concern values. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the return of a product_id and pointing to downstream tools (get_price/configure_product), making its role unique.

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 provides context by showing when to use the tool (to turn a concern into a recommendation) and even routes security concerns to a brochure MCP (Garden Route only). It mentions next steps but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling search/catalog tools, so it's not a 5.

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