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

Although annotations are absent, the description discloses important behavioral traits: weekly updates, exclusion of unconfirmed pre-changeover specials, the possibility of a near-empty list after changeover, and the fallback via get_product. This gives the agent a realistic picture of data freshness and edge cases beyond what the schema conveys.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides necessary caveats and an alternative in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description compensates with key context: what results include, data freshness, edge-case behavior, and the alternative tool for individual product prices. For a filtered list endpoint with three optional parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema covers 67% of parameter descriptions (limit and category), leaving only 'retailer' without a textual description but with an enum. The description's 'Filter by retailer or category' adds slight semantic context but largely repeats what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get current grocery specials and promotions', a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_product or search_products. It also mentions filtering by retailer or category and that results include savings amounts, further scoping its purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for current specials) and provides an alternative path for individual product prices, noting that after a catalogue changeover the list can be near-empty and to use get_product with special_may_have_ended: true. This clear context and alternative guidance satisfies the usage dimension.

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