lqd-verdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses output shape ('yes-or-no style verdict, with a short reason') and independence ('No affiliate cut, no placement fees'), but it omits permissions, limits, error behavior, and details about how confidence or image/URL inputs are handled.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. Purpose, usage timing, and independence are communicated efficiently.

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 tool has five parameters, a nested context object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives purpose and a partial return shape but leaves key input semantics and behavioral details unexplained, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in all supported modes.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the context object, image_path, or product_url, and adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema's own descriptions for options and description.

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 and resource: it provides an independent yes-or-no verdict with a short reason on a men's clothing item or outfit. It also states the intended caller and timing ('Called by an agent before purchase'), so the agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: before purchase, by an agent. It does not include exclusions or alternatives, but there are no sibling tools, so the absence is less damaging.

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