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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that the response is enriched with the same bouquet at other sizes/shops for price comparison, which is non-obvious aggregation behavior. It omits what happens on an unknown id, which keeps it short of 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, no filler. The return contents are front-loaded immediately after the verb+resource, and the usage trigger is placed last where it doesn't obstruct the core statement.

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 with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it fetches, the id's provenance, the extra cross-shop data, and when to reach for it. No meaningful gap remains.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema itself documents that offer_id is a UUID returned by any Blumee search tool. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, 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 specific verb and resource (get one offer by id) and enumerates the payload it returns: description, images, size, species, delivery terms, and same_bouquet_offers price comparisons. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search/browse/match tools, which operate on sets rather than a single offer.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use after a search when the user asks about a specific offer.' That tells the agent when this tool applies and implicitly positions the search siblings as the discovery step, though it never states an explicit when-not or names an alternative by name.

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