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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the attempt consumes allowance, that a timeout does not mean the request failed to run, that the request ID must not be replaced, and that the original receipt should be checked. This is exactly the failure-mode and cost context an agent cannot get from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone; no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loads the approval precondition, then cost and failure semantics in short declarative sentences. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; only 'Check the original receipt' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 destructive, allowance-consuming submission with an output schema present, the description covers approval gating, cost, non-retry policy, ID stability and timeout interpretation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 only 25%: requestId carries a description, but productAssetId and personalAssetId are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by specifying these are two *existing account* image IDs (not uploads), and 'explicit user approval' explains the permissionConfirmed const-true gate.

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: submit one DressMe request using two existing account image IDs, and explicitly separates itself from the guest demo path. It does not name the closest sibling (create_try_on / get_trifit_try_on) directly, so the routing is inferred from 'account' vs 'guest' rather than stated.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Only after explicit user approval') and a scope condition ('uses the website queue and existing account allowance, not the guest demo'), which implicitly routes guest-demo callers elsewhere. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly.

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