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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses credit spend (scope promo), a one-free-offer-per-week limit, 3-day listing window, ranking decay (halving every 7 days), and the required bearer token with scope:post. These are exactly the behavioral/financial constraints an agent must know before invoking, and nothing contradicts the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and the free/paid decision, followed by ranking details and the auth requirement. Every sentence carries useful information; slight density from pushing pricing and ranking mechanics into one block keeps it from a 5.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost decisions, limits, ranking behavior, and auth. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to `usd` beyond the schema by explaining free vs paid tiers and the ranking mechanics. `body` semantics are left to the schema, so slightly below top.

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 (promote/post) and resource (#offers channel) so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It references 'same rules as posts' to distinguish the offer from a regular post, though the differentiation from the sibling `post` tool is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear context for choosing free vs paid: omit usd (or 0) for a free weekly offer, use usd 5–1,000,000 for paid ranking. It explains the tradeoff (free = 3 days, below paid offers; more spend = higher rank halving every 7 days), giving the agent enough to decide how to spend. No explicit mention of when NOT to use it versus `post`, so not a 5.

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