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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the cost of 15 credits and the 'no data = no charge' policy, which clarifies what happens when the external world lacks data. This is useful context for an agent deciding to call the tool.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Bundle') and enumerates contents, then appends cost and refund policy. Every clause is informative; there is no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is concise while conveying all essential information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the categories of data returned and notes the no-data charge policy, which covers a common failure scenario. However, it does not detail the response structure (e.g., whether it is a flat object or nested) or explain how the signals are organized. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, and the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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% with the only parameter 'domain' described as 'eCommerce domain'. The tool description does not add any further meaning or examples for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description adds no incremental value, keeping the baseline score at 3.

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 clearly states it is a bundle of multiple signals (promotions, price stats + samples, AI-readiness) for a brand-day, distinguishing it from siblings like get_promotions and get_readiness_score which are single-purpose tools. The verb 'get' and resource 'brand snapshot' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is used when you need all signals in one call (via the word 'Bundle'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over individual siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is only weakly implied, leaving the agent to infer from the word 'bundle' alone.

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