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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavior — the response is a spec comparison table including offers and only the fields that differ — but says nothing about cost, size limits on the returned table, or error handling beyond what the schema notes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the two input modes and a compact example. No filler, and the example earns its place by disambiguating the array form.

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 usefully characterizes the return value as a spec table with offers and differing fields. The remaining gap is the limit parameter and what happens when fewer than two valid products match; otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry weight: it does explain the product_ids (2-10) path, the category+filters path, and provides a sample payload, and the filters error behavior is documented in the schema. The limit parameter (1-10) is never mentioned in either place, leaving one of four parameters semantically thin.

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 concrete operation and result: a side-by-side spec table with offers and differing fields, taking either product_ids or a category plus filters. That distinguishes it from get_product (single item) and search_products (discovery), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It clearly states the two invocation modes ('Pass 2-10 product_ids, or a category with filters') and gives a concrete example payload, which is enough for an agent to pick the right form. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over search_products or get_product, so no exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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