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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the result shape (up to 5 sections with a snippet and link), an obligation to cite the returned url, and the empty-result behavior (a note saying no guide covers it). Return-value detail is largely covered by the output schema, so this is solid additional context rather than exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the result contract, then the no-match case. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the key agent-facing concerns: what it returns, how many, what to do with the url, and what an empty result looks like. The only omission is guidance about the optional filters (type, season, locale), which is a minor gap given the schema documents them.

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 coverage is 100%, so each of the five parameters is already documented, including examples for query, locale, and season. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning — it hints at the 5-result cap but never explains when to narrow by type, season, or locale, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search BeautySpark's makeup and colour-season guides") and scopes results to sections that answer a question, with two concrete example queries. It cleanly separates itself from get_guide (full read) but never distinguishes itself from the generic `search` sibling, leaving one ambiguity.

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 states the use case (finding sections that answer a makeup or colour-season question), names the follow-up tool ("read one in full with get_guide"), and gives example queries. It does not say when to prefer this over the sibling `search` tool or address when the type/season filters are appropriate.

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