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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-policy context: results link to the offer page, the apply link lives there, and no bank or referral links are returned here. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the agent should expect from the payload.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and returned fields, then adds link and exclusion behavior, so every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description conveys enough about return shape and link behavior. It omits some minor details such as pagination semantics, but those are largely covered by the schema and annotations.

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 the kind and limit parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics, making the baseline of 3 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 names the specific resource (credit-card welcome offers and bank-account bonuses) and lists the fields returned, making it clearly distinct from generic deals or coupons. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_coupons or search_deals, but the domain is specific enough for an agent to identify it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings like get_coupons, get_deal, or list_deals. Usage is only implied by the tool name and content type, with no alternatives or exclusion conditions stated.

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