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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new context: the tool is deprecated with an identical replacement, and it returns scored products with checkout URLs. It stops short of disclosing scoring internals, limits, or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded ahead of everything else, then purpose, then usage, then exclusion — each sentence adds a distinct decision-relevant fact with no filler.

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?

Covers identity, deprecation routing, when/when-not, and a brief return-value summary; with no output schema the 'returns scored products with checkout URLs' line fills the remaining gap. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 brand, query, and strategy are all documented with examples and the strategy enum values are listed in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Get a personalized skincare recommendation') plus the differentiating scope ('ingredient-aware scoring and routine building'). The deprecation notice naming 'recommend' and the explicit contrast with 'search_products' lets an agent place it against siblings immediately.

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 both sides: use when the user wants advice, has a skin concern, or asks what to buy; do not use for browsing or listing — use search_products instead. It also routes to the replacement tool 'recommend' for the deprecated path, leaving nothing to inference.

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