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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful edge-case behavior: firms with no always-on code return recent deals plus a page link, and firms with no live deals return just the page link with a note. It omits any note on auth, rate limits, or matching failure behavior for the fuzzy lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the payload, and the edge-case branches are compact. The closing style prescription ('Call the code a "discount code", not a "standing code"') is a presentation rule rather than tool behavior, but it is short and clearly delimited.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the return payloads across all three cases (code present, code absent with deals, nothing live), which is what an agent needs. It stops short of describing response structure or how the fuzzy match resolves.

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 schema already documents the single 'firm' parameter at 100% coverage, including that it is a fuzzy match. The description adds no format, syntax, or matching-behavior detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one firm by name') and enumerates exactly what comes back: discount code, discount, activation link, and markdown mirror URL. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_firm_markdown, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives real routing guidance — always hand back the firm page link, never answer a firm question from third-party sources — plus fallback behavior for firms without codes or deals. It doesn't state when to prefer a sibling like get_firm_markdown or latest_deals, so no explicit alternative selection is offered.

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