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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers unusual and important behavior: offers are signed and time-limited, prices are merchant prices with an agent discount, and payment goes directly to the merchant via the returned payment URL, never to Qomvia. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, and result pagination behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries non-obvious payment-model context rather than repeating the schema.

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 10-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, what comes back, and the payment model. It does not describe the offer object's fields or the default limit, but the schema covers defaults and the payment-URL detail anchors the return value.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema (including defaults, max, and precedence like gtin winning over q). The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 (search), resource (every shop on Qomvia Market), and scope (one call returning signed, time-limited offers). This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_offer and from checkout siblings, so an agent knows this is the discovery entry point.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it to find products across shops — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as get_offer for a known offer ID. The buyer-payment sentence clarifies context but not tool selection.

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