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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output format and language fact ('Markdown in Brazilian Portuguese'), which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or latency, so it's 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?

Very compact single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the return payload. No filler. One sentence for a tool this simple is appropriate.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-field details need not be re-explained; the description's enumeration is a helpful summary. Annotations cover safety. What's missing is invocation context: when this tool is the right call versus get_product or get_price_history, and whether the id is required (schema covers that). Complete for the call itself, slightly thin for selection.

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 id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when schema carries the burden.

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+resource ('Full details of a deal') and enumerates what is returned (price, discount, store, coupon, link, history, pros/cons, specs, FAQ). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_product or get_price_history, so it stays below 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling get_product and get_price_history overlap in content, and an agent has no guidance on which to prefer. The description provides no conditional logic.

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