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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the call is advisory rather than an action, carries no queue placement, and selection is by demand and gaps. That is exactly the kind of expectation-setting annotations can't express.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the expectation-setting clause is front-loaded with the core action. Minor looseness in the parenthetical, but nothing wasted.

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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description explains what the call means and what it does not guarantee. It is still thin on where this fits relative to the many sibling tools, which an agent selecting among 25 options would need.

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% — both 'url' and 'why' are documented in the schema, including that 'why' is optional and that 'url' may be an address or a name. The description adds only the scope qualifier ('any product'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 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: suggests a product for the agent to drive and list, scoped as 'free, anyone, any product'. It distinguishes itself from transactional siblings like order/pay_order, though 'drive' is domain jargon that isn't defined.

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?

It implies when to use it ('a signal for our planner') and what it is not ('never a promise or a place in the queue'), which sets expectations. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance among the ~25 siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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