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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful content-shape context (short, ordered, includes the pushback question and healing judgment), but an output schema already exists to describe returns, so much of this is redundant. A 3 is appropriate given the low behavioral bar set by 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 sentences, with the invocation trigger front-loaded and the return contents following. Every clause carries information (readiness, artist questions, red flags, healed work). It is slightly dense but not padded.

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 zero parameters, a fully populated annotation set, and a dedicated output schema, the description's only remaining job is stating purpose and when to invoke it, which it does thoroughly. An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; per calibration this earns the baseline 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing ('Returns a short ordered checklist') and enumerates the exact contents: the key question to ask, how to judge healed work, and consultation red flags. This distinguishes it from siblings like assess_tattoo_idea and get_tattoo_size_chart, which serve different phases of the decision process.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when the user asks how to decide whether they are ready to book..., what to ask an artist, or what red flags to watch for.' That is clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach a 5.

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