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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is read-only, accepts no email or payment data, and cannot complete a purchase. This enriches the agent's understanding of safety and limitations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage context, output summary, and behavioral constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers when to use, what it returns, behavioral constraints, and parameter attribution context. No gaps remain.

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% and both parameters (source, campaign) have clear descriptions. The description mentions 'attributed signup URL' which indirectly ties parameters to attribution, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns 'exact Chicago Daily Drop terms and an attributed signup URL', using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'subscription handoff'. It is distinct from siblings like get_salvage_signal_offer (price-only) and get_chicago_reuse_brief.

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 explicitly says 'Use only after a human expresses interest in subscribing or asks for the checkout path' and instructs to use get_salvage_signal_offer for price-only questions, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a specific alternative.

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