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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: default exclusion of expired offers, the row contents (evidence, evidence date, verification status, UTC deadline), and the non-obvious alphabetical ranking that is explicitly not by discount or commission.

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, each carrying distinct information: what is searched, what a result row contains, and the two surprising behaviors (expired filtering, alphabetical ranking). No filler.

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 describes the returned fields and default filtering/ranking, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The main gap is the undocumented filter parameters (confirmed_only, product_id, query, limit), which leaves the tool's full capability unstated.

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 0% and there are six parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains include_expired ('Expired offers are left out unless include_expired') and hints at offer_type values, but says nothing about limit, query, product_id, or confirmed_only, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 description gives a specific verb ('Find') and a well-scoped resource ('reader offers and vendor offers on our deal pages'), with concrete examples (discounts, extra credits, longer trials, conditional pilots). It is clearly a search over offers, distinguishable from siblings like get_offer and compare_offer_costs, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied by the domain (searching deal pages) and by the include_expired switch, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_offer, check_offer_eligibility, or compare_offer_costs. An agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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