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

With read-only/idempotent annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds substantial behavioral detail: dedup rule (no product in two rows), max 3 cards per shop per row, rows under 4 products dropped, cap of 12 products, and the exact discount and trending formulas including edge cases (missing 30-day history, 2+ shops required).

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?

Front-loaded with what the rows are, followed by row types, invariants, and next step in a logical order. It is dense and its long parenthetical formula clauses make it heavy to parse, but no sentence is filler.

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 no-output-schema, zero-required-param read tool this is close to complete: return shape (up to 12 products per row with `search_products` summary fields), suppression rules, and next step are all stated. It leans on `search_products` to define those shared fields rather than spelling them out, which leaves a small dependency 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds real value by clarifying that `date` reads another day's seasonal calendar while products stay today's, and by naming the `formulas`/`seasons` fields that expose the rules; `locale` and `deliver_to_country` are left to the schema.

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 and resource — the rows shown above the full product list (/produkty) for a buyer country — and enumerates them (`deals`, `trending`, seasonal rows). Named sibling references (`search_products` for field shape, `get_product` as the next step) make it clearly distinguishable from `daily_deals` and `trending_new_products`.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies (homepage rows for a buyer country) and an explicit follow-up route: `get_product` with a slug for full comparison. It does not, however, say when to prefer it over sibling `daily_deals` or `trending_new_products`, which cover overlapping signals.

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