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

Annotations already establish the safe-read, open-world profile, so this clears the lower bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the return is a plain header row plus data rows, and a one-size accessory yields available: false as a valid signal rather than an error — a non-obvious edge case that prevents misinterpretation.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the edge case, then the parameter source. No filler, though the middle clause about 'header row plus data rows' is slightly at odds with the existing output schema.

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 an output schema handling return values and annotations covering safety, the description only needs purpose, edge-case behavior, and param sourcing — all present. Minor gap: no explicit when-to-use framing relative to siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Product style code' by specifying the upstream fields (gucci_search / gucci_category style_code) that supply the value, adding sourcing meaning the schema does not.

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 resource — Gucci's own size-conversion chart for one product style — with enough precision to separate it from gucci_product, gucci_search, and gucci_category. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 names where style_code originates (gucci_search's or gucci_category's style_code field), which is real workflow guidance, but it never states when to reach for the size guide versus a sibling tool, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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