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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful undisclosed context: matching is approximate, results include examples and an Aisle guide link, and the no-arg path returns a list rather than an error.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers the primary lookup, the fallback list mode, and the return contents with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return payload (definition, clothing examples, invitation wording, guide link), which is sufficient for a read-only lookup. Only the fuzzy-match failure behavior, e.g. what happens with a misspelled or unknown code, is left unstated.

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%, and the schema itself already states the parameter is optional and matched approximately, so the description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource (returns a wedding dress code definition) and covers both operating modes: lookup by code vs. listing all codes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_invitation_wording, whose territory it partially claims by returning invitation wording.

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?

Usage is implied through the conditional 'or lists the available dress codes when none is specified', which tells the agent how the absent-parameter case behaves. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to an alternative such as get_invitation_wording for wording-only requests.

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