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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable interpretive context: only the two most recent snapshots are compared, missing lines reflect file completeness, and sparse snapshots cannot prove duration or discontinuation. That caveat meaningfully shapes how an agent should present results.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: scope first, then triggers, then the interpretive caveat. No filler and nothing important buried at the end.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, triggers, and result interpretation. It is essentially complete for a two-parameter read tool, with only the absence of an explicit when-not-to-use note as a minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (supplier_name, limit) are fully documented in the schema and the description need not restate them. It adds no extra syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb (compare), resource (supplier offers), and scope (latest two saved offers within the user's workspace remit). No sibling tool performs historical offer comparison, so the agent can select this without confusion.

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 explicit trigger scenarios — 'what changed', restock, cost, availability, ETA, terms questions — which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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