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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scope information — that this is the *full* record rather than a slice — which is genuinely useful context. It adds nothing about cost, rate limits, or whether a missing offer yields an error versus an empty result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates contents without filler; every clause carries information. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly weakens the opening, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The residual gap is sibling ambiguity — it never tells the agent why to prefer this over get_price_context or get_changes — but the core lookup contract is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains that offer_id comes from search_deals. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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 names a specific resource ('the full evidence record for one offer') and enumerates its contents — identity, price and conditions, verification ledger, freshness, price context, recent changes. That is far more specific than the title alone. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from get_price_context, get_changes, or verify_offer, whose subject matter it partially absorbs.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no exclusion. The only hint of routing ('Offer id from search_deals') lives in the schema, not the description. An agent must infer on its own whether to call this full-record tool or the narrower get_price_context / get_changes siblings.

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