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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'unknowns remain explicit' indicates how the tool handles missing or ambiguous facts, and 'evaluate eligibility from typed company facts' clarifies the reliance on typed facts. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the tool's approach to uncertainty, which helps the agent set expectations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, lists the offer types, then states filtering and eligibility evaluation, closing with the behavior on unknowns. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is efficient for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, one required, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the core function and key behavioral traits (explicit unknowns) adequately. It does not mention the limit or entities/categories parameters directly, but these are fully documented in the schema. The output schema covers return value details, so the description does not need to explain them. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could be slightly richer on usage guidance.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it summarizes filters (query, vendor, category) but 'vendor' is not an exact parameter name (likely entities), and the schema already details each parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parametric load; the description adds minimal extra clarity.

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 searches startup credits and deals, enumerating the types (cloud credits, SaaS discounts, free tiers, grants, perks, partner offers) and explicitly mentions filtering and eligibility evaluation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_offers (comparison) and prepare_declaration (declaration) by focusing on search. The verb-resource combination is 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 provides context that this is a search tool for startup credits/deals with filtering and eligibility evaluation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies the search role but lacks direct guidance on routing to siblings such as compare_offers for post-search comparison. The usage context is clear enough for basic selection but incomplete for optimal differentiation.

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