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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context on top: the payload is the steps and shades of a single look drawn from editorial article content rather than the user's own saved looks, which affects trust and interpretation of results. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Nothing is repeated from the title and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only omission is behavior on an invalid or stale look id, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 both the id format and the locale parameter's language-tag guidance are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the id's provenance, which is a modest clarification rather than new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the steps and shades of one makeup look") plus the source domain ("from a BeautySpark article"), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like find_article_looks (listing) and get_my_look (user-owned looks). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly ties invocation to a prerequisite: the id must come from find_article_looks, including the expected format. It does not explicitly exclude adjacent siblings such as get_my_look or get_look_status, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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