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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that data is fetched live, gives latency expectations (a few seconds, up to ~20s via unblocker backend), and describes the sort order. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, which keeps it from 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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core behavior and return shape, followed by the one dependency and timing caveat.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers input provenance, output fields, ordering, and latency, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the schema already documents that productId accepts digits or a full URL. The description adds only that the id comes from ceneo_search, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('return EVERY shop's offer') plus the exact return fields (shop, price, link) and ordering (cheapest-first). This is clearly distinguishable from ceneo_search and ceneo_product, which are about discovery and single-product detail.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to get the required id ('Get the id from ceneo_search'), establishing the prerequisite and sibling relationship. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., vs ceneo_product for a single product), so it falls just below the top bar.

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