Assess My Hair | Powered by Rich Mom Recommends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is cosmetic and educational only, does not diagnose or prescribe, routes concerning matters to professionals, and triggers no emails, purchases, or other consequential actions.

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?

The description is a compact two-sentence definition with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the safety and scope limitations are stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's complexity: it summarizes all inputs, states the output type, discloses limitations, and provides safety routing. Required parameters are 0, there is no output schema, and no siblings exist, so nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions hair type, condition, goals, and routine at a high level, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('COSMETIC hair-care approaches and product categories to consider'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from medical or diagnostic tools by defining the cosmetic/educational boundary.

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?

The description gives clear context: it is for cosmetic hair-care guidance based on hair type, condition, goals, and routine. It also provides exclusions by stating it does NOT diagnose, treat, or advise on medical/scalp conditions and routes concerning cases to a professional, though it does not name explicit alternative tools.

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