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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add the data-source scope (all 20 CigarFinder retailers) and the return shape (best deal plus alternatives sorted by price). With no output schema, that return-ordering detail is genuinely useful added context, though permission/latency/caching behavior is unstated.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action and scope front-loaded followed by the return contract. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and return structure adequately. The one gap is that zero parameters are marked required, so it is unclear whether cigar_name is mandatory or whether query alone suffices; the description's 'for a specific cigar' hints at the intent but does not resolve 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description mentions only that it targets 'a specific cigar', adding no syntax, format, or interaction guidance for cigar_name vs query.

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 states a specific verb+resource (find lowest price for a cigar) and scopes it clearly to the 20 tracked retailers, plus names the return content. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling compare_prices, which sounds like an overlapping price-comparison capability, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a specific cigar across all 20 retailers', but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus compare_prices or search_cigars, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The agent can guess the intent but is not routed.

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