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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the message is 'short', but does not elaborate on any behavioral nuances (e.g., whether it queries a catalog, requires specific input formats, or has side effects beyond generating text). Since annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence without filler, but the inclusion of 'Oda Juwotda(오다 주웠다)' adds an unexplained element that may confuse an agent unfamiliar with the phrase. It is still brief and front-loaded with the action, so it earns a 4.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (3 required), a rich output schema (not shown but indicated), and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to understand the tool's function. It doesn't explain the 'Oda Juwotda' reference nor mention any special requirements, but the presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The only gap is the unexplained phrase, so 4 is reasonable.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds that the message 'fits the gift, relationship, occasion, and tone', which essentially repeats the parameter names without offering extra syntax, formats, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage with minimal additional meaning.

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 the verb 'Drafts' and the resource 'gift card message', and specifies it 'fits the gift, relationship, occasion, and tone'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_rush_gift, recommend_gifts, and find_pickup_options, which have different purposes (planning, recommending, finding).

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 implies the tool is for drafting messages but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions like 'use this when the user has a gift, relationship, and occasion'. It relies on the agent inferring usage from the verb and siblings, which meets the 'implied usage' bar but not explicit guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds the precondition that gifts are already chosen and references the Oda Juwotda service, but doesn't disclose additional side effects, limitations, or dependencies beyond annotations. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loads purpose, then usage guidance. The 'Oda Juwotda(오다 주웠다)' phrase is unexplained and may be noise, but overall is efficient.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage, output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose and usage. It doesn't explain return format, but output schema exists; it doesn't discuss prerequisites beyond 'already chosen', which is stated. Minor gap: no mention of how limit interacts with results, but schema has default.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline 3. Description repeats gift_ids but adds no extra semantics for parameters like minutes_until_meeting or transport_mode beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with 'Finds pickup stores and detour times' – a specific verb and resource. It also scopes to 'gifts that are already chosen (gift_ids)', distinguishing from recommend_gifts (narrowing candidates) and plan_rush_gift (all known from start).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: as a follow-up after recommend_gifts. It also names the alternative plan_rush_gift and the condition under which that sibling alone suffices. This gives an agent clear decision rules.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that it returns everything in one call, including feasibility of arriving on time, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives the usage trigger, the output bundle, and a sibling comparison. Every sentence contributes actionable information, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The output schema exists and the annotations are rich, so the description does not need to restate return structures or safety. It clearly explains the composite nature and the core use case, but it could more fully address how the other sibling tools relate to this one, especially when a user only wants a gift message or pickup option.

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 all 11 parameters already have individual descriptions. The tool description highlights only origin, destination, and minutes_until_meeting as the main triggers, without adding parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the specific action ('Plans a last-minute gift pickup') and lists the concrete output bundle it returns. It also distinguishes itself from recommend_gifts and implicitly from the single-purpose sibling tools by framing itself as the one-call composite tool.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('whenever the user gives an origin, a destination, and the minutes left before a meeting') and names recommend_gifts as the alternative. However, it does not clarify when an agent should prefer draft_gift_message or find_pickup_options instead, so the routing guidance is not fully complete.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool does not compute pickup stores or travel time, and that it returns 'ideas only.' This prevents the agent from expecting logistics output. It doesn't describe return format, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. Minor gap: no mention of how candidates are ranked or whether it can return zero results, but the explicit 'ideas only' scope is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and scope ('ideas only'), the second sentence clarifies what it does not do, and the third gives the routing rule. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information comes first.

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 read-only, idempotent recommendation tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and routing to a sibling. The only missing context is what happens when no gift candidates match (e.g., empty result behavior), but that's a minor gap given the output schema and annotations. The routing rule to plan_rush_gift is a strong contextual addition.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of what the parameters collectively do ('matched to relationship, occasion, budget, preferences, and constraints') but doesn't add per-parameter detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't contradict or add significant new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Recommends gift ideas'), a resource (gift candidates), and a clear scope ('ideas only'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from plan_rush_gift by stating what it does NOT compute (pickup stores, travel time). This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'If origin, destination, or remaining minutes are available, call plan_rush_gift instead of this tool.' This is a direct, actionable routing rule. It also implies the tool is for idea generation, not logistics, which is clear context.

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