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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the public-visibility-only scope and the technical reason for it (no verified caller identity). This clarifies the tool's limits without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose, then the key limitation, then filter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 5 optional parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, limitations, and filter combination. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial detail that 'All filters are optional and combine with AND,' which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions and aids correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool 'Searches Mixer4AI's publicly-visible published offers' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_published_intents by explicitly targeting offers and the supply-side catalog.

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 explicitly states the exclusion condition: 'never tenant-private or verified-network-only offers' and explains why (no verified caller identity). This gives strong when-not guidance, though it doesn't name an alternative tool for those excluded cases.

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