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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already provide; it simply restates the action. Annotations indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, but the description does not disclose output format, filtering behavior, or team context semantics.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, which is efficient and easy to parse. Combining it with the schema keeps the definition tight, though it could have briefly mentioned the team context to improve clarity.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves some details implicit. It doesn't state that the context parameter can switch between personal and team views, nor what the resulting outfit list contains; however, the schema covers the parameter aspect.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter 'context' with the description '"personal" (default) or "team:<id>"', so the tool description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 'List your outfits' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools by the unique 'outfits' resource, though it doesn't add additional scope details such as context filtering.

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 usage when a user wants to list their outfits, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use the team context parameter or any prerequisites.

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