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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: validating colour existence/stock and pricing the blind, and it states the return format (configuration summary for create_cart). However, it does not explicitly mention whether the operation is non-mutating or stateless, though the phrase 'pass directly into create_cart' strongly implies it. Slightly more detail on side effects would earn a 5.

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?

The description is exactly three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action, describing validation/pricing, and explaining the output/prequel. No filler, no repetition, and the key verb is front-loaded. Excellent structure.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: it validates stock, prices, and returns a summary for create_cart. It also gives a usage precheck. Missing details like how quantity/province/finish affect pricing are covered by the schema, so the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A slight gap is the absence of any note about error behavior (e.g., what happens if validation fails), which could merit a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping core parameters as a 'full blind specification', clarifying the purpose of the configuration (to feed create_cart), and adding the stock-validation detail for the colour parameter. This integration goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action phrase 'Lock in a full blind specification' and enumerates the exact inputs: product, dimensions, colour, and mount type. It also clarifies the tool's role (validation and pricing) and distinguishes it from siblings like create_cart (which the output feeds) and check_colour_stock (which is a precheck). No ambiguity.

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?

The tool explicitly tells the user to call check_colour_stock first if availability is uncertain, and it states that the returned configuration summary should be passed directly into create_cart. This gives clear sequencing and an explicit alternative, removing guesswork about when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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