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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get', 'public details') with no destructive side effects, but does not disclose possible errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence with 15 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No extraneous information.

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 simple single-object retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what is returned) and distinguishes from list operations. Could mention return format or error behavior, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' indicating the parameter is an offer identifier, but does not clarify the format, source, or constraints of 'offerId'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'public details of a single offer by id', and lists specific fields (price, schemas, seller reputation). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like payanagent_list_offers (multiple) and payanagent_manage_offer (mutations).

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?

The description implies usage context by requiring an 'id' and specifying 'public details', but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use. No direct comparison to siblings is provided, so the guidance is minimal.

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