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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description's burden is lighter. It usefully adds result behavior — 'every available offer sorted by price, with savings calculations' — going beyond what annotations convey, though pagination or result-count limits are undisclosed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return behavior, then the parameter routing rule. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 return-value burden and does so adequately (offers sorted by price with savings). All parameters are optional, so nothing critical is missing, but the absence of guidance on empty results or missing product_id handling leaves a small gap.

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%, making 3 the baseline, but the description adds genuine routing semantics: product_id yields an exact match while cigar_name triggers a search. That is a selection rule the schema descriptions only partially hint at, so it earns an increment above baseline.

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 ('Compare prices for a specific cigar across all retailers') and adds the scope of the comparison (all retailers, every offer). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_best_price, which an agent could easily confuse with a full price comparison.

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 parameter-selection guidance ('Use product_id for exact match or cigar_name for search') but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_best_price or search_cigars. Usage is implied by the purpose sentence rather than explicitly scoped.

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