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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value beyond annotations by stating that no authentication is required, that results are 'currently-active' sales, and by enumerating the coverage across airline, hotel, credit-card, and loyalty programs.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the core behavior, then add scope, auth status, and use-case guidance. No redundant or filler content exists.

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?

For a simple filtered-list tool with fully documented optional params, read-only/open-world annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies all needed context: what is listed, what categories exist, that it requires no auth, and when to use it.

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%, so the program and category parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, yielding the baseline score.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List currently-active points sales', and goes further to enumerate the exact kinds of deals included (buy-points promos, transfer bonuses). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling pricing and valuation tools by scoping to active promos rather than static rates.

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 gives a clear use case ('starting point when a user asks "what's a good deal right now?"') and notes that no auth is required. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is concrete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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