Product Line Colour Namer

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states names are archive-sourced, not invented, and include source citations. It details output fields (archive name, citation, description, dE distance, match quality, confidence), fully disclosing 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 well-structured with two sentences and bullet points, front-loading the core purpose. The bullet list of style options is slightly redundant with the schema's 'style' description but still useful.

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 5 parameters, a rich output schema, and the need for defensible naming, the description covers all aspects: inputs, outputs, use cases, and behavioral guarantees. It is fully complete for agent decision-making.

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%, but the description adds context: hexes array format, style enumeration (geographical, poetic, etc.), and default max_dE (25). This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 clearly states it generates archive-grounded colour names for up to 40 SKUs, specifying inputs and outputs. It distinguishes from sibling 'colour_namer' by emphasizing archive sourcing and defensible citations for ecommerce contexts.

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 explicitly lists use cases (paint, candle, fashion, homeware, cosmetics) and style options, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'colour_namer'.

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