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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: entries carry rejection reasons, and it discloses the environment limitation ('Works on: Demo shop (sample data)'). It stops short of describing volume or ordering behavior, which is why it is not a 5.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the resource scope and the reasons payload are front-loaded before the environment note. Every clause earns its place.

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 the description needn't enumerate return fields, and annotations carry the safety semantics. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly; only the absence of routing guidance against sibling tools keeps this from a 5.

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 (account, max_pages) are fully documented in the schema, including the 100-offers-per-page default of 5. The description adds nothing about either parameter, 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?

The description names a precise subset of resources: offers the marketplace 'rejected or blocked', plus the fact that reasons are attached. That scope naturally separates it from offers_list / offers_summary, though no sibling is named explicitly. It is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this when it wants to see why offers failed validation. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to offers_list, offers_summary, or catalog_health_audit as alternatives, despite many closely related siblings.

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