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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the returned statuses, the `missing` feedback field, that the result is not an order acceptance, and a privacy constraint against passing personal/confidential 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by invocation flow, status vocabulary, and the privacy caveat. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information, with only mild redundancy around the optional-fields workflow.

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 present the description needn't detail return values, yet it still explains statuses and the `missing` field. Combined with the privacy constraint and optional-field guidance, it covers what an agent needs, though it could say more about how the fit statuses should be acted on.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters and their enums, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only the meta-guidance that fields are optional and that only categories and counts should be supplied, not per-parameter semantics.

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 and object ('Check whether a product shoot fits Egor's published routes') and enumerates those routes (remote AI, hybrid, photography, video), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like draft_brief or find_portfolio.

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 clear invocation guidance: all fields optional, pass what the user already said, then ask about fields returned in `missing`, and clarifies this is a preliminary check rather than order acceptance. It doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the when-to-use context is strong.

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