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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the facet is 'live', and every returned slug is guaranteed valid for modaoperandi-search, which tells the agent the output is a directly reusable search input rather than opaque data.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core purpose leads and supporting hints follow. Slightly choppy in structure (the 'gender:' fragment), but every sentence 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?

For a one-param read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the department input, slug reusability, and the related categories tool. Nothing essential is missing, though the sibling-differentiation could be marginally sharper.

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% and the single parameter's documented values (women, men) are already in the schema. The description restates the same values, adding no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('live designer facet for one department'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It stops short of fully naming the sibling distinction beyond a trailing pointer to modaoperandi_categories, but the scope ('one department') is clearly delimited.

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 forward-looking guidance: the returned slugs are valid for modaoperandi-search, and modaoperandi_categories is named as the tool for listing categories/facets. It does not spell out an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' condition, but the workflow context is clear.

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