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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'without creating product or payment state,' which is essentially a restatement of read-only behavior, and mentions the return of 'stable offer identities and revision digests.' This adds a small amount of context about the output, but since an output schema exists, this information may already be captured there. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. It contains no redundant phrases and every clause adds value (purpose, method, and non-mutating guarantee). It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and read-only nature, and annotations provide the safety profile. However, it omits details about pagination (the cursor parameter) and the limit behavior, which are relevant for a search tool that likely returns multiple results. The output schema may describe the return format, but the description does not mention how to handle pagination or interpret the cursor. Given the tool's simplicity, this is an acceptable but not exhaustive level of completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% for q and limit, with only the cursor parameter having a schema description. The description itself does not explain any parameters; it only hints at the query parameter through 'free-text query.' It does not explain the limit default or the cursor's role in pagination. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate but fails to do so, leaving parameter semantics largely undefined.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('current immutable Ausca offer catalog'), and the method ('by free-text query'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ausca_get_offer (which retrieves a specific offer by ID) by focusing on query-based search. The phrase 'without creating product or payment state' reinforces its read-only scope, differentiating it from creation-oriented siblings.

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 description implies usage: it is a search tool for finding offers, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., ausca_get_offer) or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool routing, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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