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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world reads, so the burden is lighter. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot carry: the data is 'recomputed twice a day' and each category encodes a provenance rule (competitor-confirmed sale, comparison against a years-old capture, three-shop scarcity).

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?

The kind definitions are front-loaded in a single dense sentence and the freshness note is a short closer; every clause earns its place by disambiguating an enum. The first sentence is long and syntactically heavy, but not 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 an eight-parameter, optional-only filter tool with no output schema, the description covers the ambiguous dimension (the category meanings) and the freshness model. It stops short of describing result shape or how multiple filters combine, but those are secondary given the rich schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving operational definitions for each of the six `kind` values, which the schema only enumerates. Still, it adds nothing about how brand, country, vehicle, and currency interact with one another.

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 precisely what the tool returns (defensible price claims, grouped by kind) and defines every enum value, so an agent knows the resource and its scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_products or fake_sales, though the 'claims we can defend' framing implicitly distances it from fake_sales.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, so an agent must infer that this is a curated daily-deal feed rather than a general search. The only routing signal is the implicit contrast with fake_sales in the phrase 'claims we can defend'.

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