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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding what they don't: results are dealio-written two-to-three-sentence summaries with their own headline, source attribution and article link, ordered newest first. It stops short of stating any rate limits or how paging terminates, but the return-shape disclosure is genuinely additive.

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, front-loaded with the resource and content scope before filtering details. The first sentence is a long comma-run that carries a lot at once, but every clause (content types, summary format, ordering) contributes information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies what a returned item contains — headline, summary, source, article link, dealio link and named store pages — so an agent knows what it can cite. Pagination semantics are only implied through the schema's offset, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, including the store name-or-slug example and the theme enum, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter statement ('Filter by store (name or slug) or theme') restates the schema rather than adding semantics for q, limit, or offset.

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 line 'Belgian consumer news ... prices, promotions, store openings and incidents, product recalls, tests, taxes and energy' names the exact resource and content domain, and nothing in the sibling list (deals, campaigns, stores, meal ideas) overlaps with it. An agent can tell instantly this is the news-retrieval tool rather than a pricing or store lookup.

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 closing 'Filter by store (name or slug) or theme' implies how to narrow results and the 'for people who want to save' framing hints at the audience, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no routing to siblings such as search_deals or get_buying_guide when a user actually wants promotions rather than news coverage of them.

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