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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does describe return content, including the notable 'no deals yet' fallback note, which is a genuine behavioral trait, but it omits auth needs, length/pagination, and error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the input guidance. Efficient, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned markdown sections and the edge case of firms with no deals. Minor gaps remain around output size and error cases, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds the resolution semantics ('firm name resolved to a slug', 'any firm the site tracks resolves'), which gives marginal value beyond the schema; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Return the markdown mirror of a firm page') and enumerates the content sections (facts, deals, FAQ). It implicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_firm by being the markdown variant, but does not name that alternative, so it stops 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?

It gives a usable input hint ('Provide a slug or a firm name') and clarifies that any tracked firm resolves, including those without a discount code. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_firm or the other siblings, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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