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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: the data covers both homepage announcements and email campaigns, distinguishes measured price cuts from checkout-only discounts, and explicitly states 'Promo codes are never included' — a valuable negative guarantee. It does not discuss rate limits or freshness/latency, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is a single long sentence that is front-loaded with the governing question, but the tail becomes a run-on list ('price cuts Avahit measured itself, today's homepage offer, holiday sale pages...') that is harder to parse than a short bulleted enumeration would be.

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 carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly — dates, price-drop verification, homepage offers, holiday pages, restock cadence. Missing only structural details such as response format or whether results span a default time window.

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 100% for the single 'store' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the same examples as the schema ('glossier.com', brand names) without adding format, normalization, or lookup-behavior details, so it does not exceed the schema.

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 names a specific resource (a brand store's announced sales) and enumerates what is returned: announcement dates, whether prices actually dropped, homepage offers, holiday sale pages, and restock frequency. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_price_history or search_products, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 framing question 'When does a brand store have sales?' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the three sibling tools or how to choose between get_store_sales and get_price_history/compare_alternatives.

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