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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses cache-dependent behavior, the refresh of badge/action against current mandate state, the absence of shipping data, and the offer_not_in_cache failure mode. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and error handling without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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, each earning its place: core purpose first, then skip condition, then shipping-data caveat and failure recovery. No filler and the most important operational detail is front-loaded.

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 read-only cache lookup with an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, failure handling, and data limitations. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether or how to call this tool is missing.

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?

Input schema already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is high. The description adds meaningful context that supply_id is a cache lookup key and that agent_id drives the mandate-state badge refresh, deepening understanding of how parameters relate without duplicating schema text.

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 action ('re-reads one offer from the search cache') and resource, and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by noting the payload equals supply_search's return and directing shipping queries to supply_delivery. An agent can identify what this tool does and how it differs from supply_search and supply_delivery without ambiguity.

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 gives clear directives: skip this tool if the offer is already held and only fields are needed, use supply_delivery for ETA/cost, and re-run supply_search on offer_not_in_cache. These explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions leave no ambiguity about selecting alternatives.

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