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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ranked with currently-converting offers first, which an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations. It omits any statement about pagination behavior beyond the limit param, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is searched, how filters and ranking behave, and what payout means. The most decision-relevant facts (optional filters, ranking order) are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With 7 all-optional parameters, 100% schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly. The remaining gap is that there is no output schema and the description never sketches what an offer result contains, so an agent must call it blind on the return shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by defining domain vocabulary: 'Payout is what RottenAds pays the publisher per conversion (or the RevShare %)' clarifies what min_payout and model actually select. It stops short of explaining cross-filter interaction, e.g. whether min_payout is ignored for RevShare offers.

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: 'Search the RottenAds offer catalog.' An agent immediately understands this is a filtered lookup over offers, but the description never differentiates from the sibling get_offer (single-offer fetch) or list_verticals, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 line 'Every filter is optional' sets invocation expectations, and the ranking note implies this is the browse/discovery entry point. However, it never says when to use this instead of get_offer for a known offer, nor when a result set should be narrowed rather than paged.

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