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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds real behavioral context: shop_the_look is frequently absent and returned as an empty list, and similar_products is algorithmic. This preempts false 'no results' interpretations, adding value beyond the 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?

Two dense sentences with no wasted filler, and the tool's output surfaces are front-loaded. The nested parentheticals make it slightly run-on but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description still summarizes the two surfaces. Combined with the read-only annotation and the param's origin, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though an explicit sibling contrast would complete it.

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 0% for the single url param, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying that url is a site-relative product path sourced from sibling tools' url fields. That framing is meaningful for a one-param tool with no schema docs.

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 returns the cross-sell surfaces a Burberry product page loads, naming both surfaces (similar_products and shop_the_look). This distinguishes it from burberry_product, which would return the item itself, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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?

It clarifies usage context by explaining where the url comes from (burberry_search, burberry_category, or burberry_product's url field), giving clear guidance on the input's origin. It lacks an explicit when-not or a direct comparison to siblings, but the context is clear.

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