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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: returns a JSON array with all fields parsed, returns an empty array on no match, and notably that price_max filters against the offer's price_min field — a non-obvious semantic quirk disclosed in prose.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then return behavior, then a scannable FILTERS block. However, the entire bullet list duplicates fields already fully documented in the schema, so a meaningful fraction of the text does not earn its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value (parsed JSON array, empty array on no match). What remains unstated is ordering of results and whether there is any total-count or pagination signal beyond limit — minor for a filter-list tool.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, ranges, and the enum. The description's filter list mostly restates the schema; the only added nuance (price_min matching) is also present in the schema's price_max description. Baseline 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 plus scope: 'Search for active offers in the AnyGett database.' That distinguishes it from get_offer_details (single fetch) implicitly via the filter list, but it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling the way it names list_categories for category IDs.

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?

All filters are marked optional and a prerequisite is given ('get valid IDs from list_categories'), which tells the agent how to call it in a multi-step flow. It does not say when to prefer this over get_offer_details or when a search is unnecessary (e.g., already holding an offer ID).

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