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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it returns up to 5 categories, best match first, empty when nothing matches, and notes data freshness. It also instructs the agent to always surface specific URLs to the user, which is a meaningful behavioral detail not captured in structured fields.

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 description is detailed but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core behavior, then gives usage guidance, then output limits, then presentation requirements. It is structured so an agent can quickly extract the most important selection and invocation facts.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers ranking logic, result limits, empty results, data freshness, and user-facing link requirements, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds examples that align with the parameters but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 and resource: it finds where to buy products from a shopping category with the most savings, returning matching categories and ranked stores. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_cashback_rates_by_store_name and get_best_deals_by_brand as the alternatives for retailers and brands.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete user query examples ('where can I buy dog food with the biggest discount?', 'best cashback for electronics'). It also names the sibling tools to use for retailer or brand queries, so an agent knows exactly when not to use this tool.

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