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

The description enriches beyond annotations by detailing the return payload: 'scored products with checkout URLs, safety assessment, and authority state (SHOULD/CAN/SHOULDNT/ESCALATE/CANT).' This provides concrete information about the tool's behavior and output, going well beyond the simple readOnlyHint and destructiveHint 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?

The description is two sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage, followed by return details. Each sentence adds essential information without fluff or repetition. This is a model of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return values and authority states, which is critical for the agent. It also covers usage guidance. However, it does not disambiguate from the sibling tool skincare_recommend, which could lead to incorrect selection in edge cases.

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% with descriptive parameter definitions. The description does not add much parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already in the schema, such as 'query' being a natural language request. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a personalized product recommendation with domain-expert scoring, safety notes, and transaction authority.' It specifies the resource and action. While it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_products by focusing on recommendations, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named skincare_recommend, leaving some 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use when the user wants advice, has a concern, or asks what to buy.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the sibling tools.

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