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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world traits, so the description's most useful addition is the failure mode: a NOT_FOUND error object. It also enumerates notable returned fields (contact_method, specific_attributes, geo_scope), which helps the agent decide whether to call it at all, though it does not describe the full response shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then return shape, then error semantics. Nothing is padded and no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information; it does so partially by listing representative fields and the NOT_FOUND error, which is likely enough for an agent to call correctly. A fuller indication of the response envelope would be needed for a 5.

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% and the single parameter already documents the UUID format and where to source IDs. The description's 'by its UUID' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('Get complete details of a specific offer') plus the key qualifier 'by its UUID', which cleanly separates it from search_offers, list_categories, and the mutation siblings. An agent can identify the operation from the description alone.

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 'by its UUID' framing plus the field list implies this is the follow-up call once an ID is known, and the schema explicitly points to search_offers for obtaining UUIDs. However, the description itself never names the alternative or states an exclusion, so routing guidance is inferential rather than explicit.

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