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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful search semantics (case-insensitive, substring rather than prefix/exact), but says nothing about result caps, ordering, or how the locale parameter affects matching.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the searched fields. The zh/en duplication restates identical content, which is modest waste, but nothing else is padded.

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 read-only search with annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient, but it omits the default limit, how locale influences results, and what the results contain, all of which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 0% and only 3 parameters exist, so the description should carry more weight. It does explain the 'query' parameter well (case-insensitive substring over four named fields), but 'limit' and 'locale' receive no mention at all, leaving a third of the surface undocumented in both places.

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 (search/substring search) and the exact fields searched (name, vendor, models, quota text), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_offers or get_offer, but the fields searched make the intent concrete.

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 usage context (free-text substring matching rather than enumeration), so an agent can infer this beats list_offers when it has a partial string. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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