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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the first cursorless call returns available_values enumerating valid flower/colour/occasion/shop values. That's a real trait not encoded elsewhere.

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 tight sentences with zero padding. Filters, the available_values note, and the sibling redirect are each front-loaded in a single clause.

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?

The description covers filtering, paging via cursor, and the available_values discovery mechanism. An output schema exists, so return-format explanation isn't needed. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether cursor paging preserves filters.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented. The description's mention of price range and delivery time mirrors schema content rather than adding syntax, so 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 specific verb+resource ('List offers') and enumerates the exact filterable attributes. It also names the sibling 'search_flower_offers' for free-form wishes, so an agent can pick it apart from alternatives.

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 example queries ('what does shop X have', 'cheapest tulips') and explicitly routes free-form wishes to search_flower_offers. The when-to-use boundary is concrete, not implied.

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