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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, no account actions/click attribution/purchase, possible outputs, handling of unknown currency/ratings, and a possible 503 when deployment is disabled. This is strong transparency, though 'Chip's admission' and 'live redirect gate' remain unexplained jargon.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with read-only intent, then moves to requirements, parameter nuance, and behavioral caveats. It contains valuable information without excess, though a few domain-specific terms reduce immediate clarity.

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?

Given four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key operational aspects: input source distinction, null handling, return statuses, side-effect absence, and deployment risk. It could be more complete by explaining the admission gate and how to handle 503, but it is largely self-sufficient.

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 75%, and the description adds meaningful distinctions beyond the schema: source_id is a marketplace source UUID rather than canonical, canonical_product_id comes from search_products, and explicit variant_id null means no selectable variant. It does not elaborate on source_kind, but the core parameter semantics are well supplemented.

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?

Description identifies a specific operation ('Read-only golf-offer.v1'), names the resource type (marketplace deal/product source UUID), and clarifies the expected outputs ('verified_offer, check_price or unavailable'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_verified_offers, but the singular/exact-variant phrasing implies the distinction.

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?

Provides concrete usage requirements: requires a known source UUID rather than canonical product IDs, and explains that search_products yields canonical IDs, not source IDs. Also clarifies variant_id null semantics, giving agents actionable selection criteria, though it does not list specific when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives.

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