get_garment_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only.' merely repeats structured data. The description does add behavioral value by disclosing exactly what detail set is returned (variant matrix, print templates, pricing floor, quality tier), but says nothing about error behavior or the fact that an unrecognized provider returns a list.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that earns its place by enumerating the returned fields. The trailing '\n\n[#16a079]' artifact is unexplained noise that slightly hurts a otherwise tight 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does by naming the components of the detail payload. Safety is covered by annotations and the 'Read-only' note; usage routing is the remaining gap.

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 67%: provider and product_ref_id are richly documented in the schema (including the fallback behavior for bad names), while workspace is undocumented in both places. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline-3 holds.

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+resource ('Full detail for one garment') and enumerates the returned content (variant matrix, print templates, pricing floor, quality tier), which is more than a restatement of the name. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like find_garments or browse_catalog, but 'one garment' vs a browse is implicit.

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 offers no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing guidance. The workflow hint (product_ref_id from browse_catalog) lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no help choosing this tool over find_garments or recommend_garment.

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