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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals output structure (product_id with rationale), input validation (primary_concern must be one of...), and a special routing behavior for security concerns. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, though the verb 'translate' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, then output and routing. Every sentence adds new information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value and how to proceed, includes necessary constraints for input values, and highlights a routing exception. This is complete for a tool with 5 simple parameters and one required enum, fitting well within the purchase flow context.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by mapping each optional parameter (room, location, budget, aesthetic) and listing the required enum values for primary_concern. It adds meaningful examples (bedroom, lounge) and clarifies that budget refers to max_budget_zar, giving agents a clear understanding of what each parameter means.

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 'translate' and clearly identifies the resource (customer concern to product recommendation). It enumerates valid primary_concern values and distinguishes the tool's role from siblings like search_products by emphasizing recommendation generation and noting a routing exception for security concerns.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use context ('Translate a customer's primary concern'), an alternative path for security concerns (brochure MCP, Garden Route customers only), and next steps (pass recommendation to get_price or configure_product). This gives clear guidance on when to invoke this tool and how it fits into the broader flow.

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