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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are scoped to the user's own saved looks and only ids are returned, which shapes how the agent sequences the next call.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the search scope front-loaded before the follow-up hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

All seven parameters are optional and both schema and output schema are rich, so the description is nearly complete. The one minor gap is that it doesn't say what happens with no filters at all (return all looks vs. empty result), which matters for an all-optional query.

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 every parameter including q, tag, person, category, favourite, limit and cursor is already documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description's facet list mirrors the schema and adds no syntax or interaction detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("the user's saved looks in BeautySpark My Looks") and enumerates the facets it can search by, which separates it from get_my_look (single look by id), list_my_generations, and list_my_palettes.

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?

"Returns look ids for get_my_look" makes the intended two-step workflow explicit, telling the agent to use this as the entry point and get_my_look for detail. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g. vs. list_my_generations or generic search), so no exclusion guidance.

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