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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: matching is against title/summary/store/category, and results are limited to verified live site deals, implying no expired or third-party content. It stops short of describing result shape or limit interaction.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, usage examples second, result scope third. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, and result scope. Missing only the return shape and any routing hint away from sibling deal tools.

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. The description goes slightly beyond the schema's 'Search words' by naming exactly which deal fields the query is matched against, which directly informs query construction.

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 (search) and resource (live deals) plus the fields searched (titles, summaries, store, category), which cleanly separates it from list_deals, get_deal, and get_hot_deals. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 concrete user-intent examples ('find me a deal on a coffee maker', 'any LEGO deals?') that map directly onto when to call it. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., browse with list_deals, use get_hot_deals for trending), so the when-not guidance is absent.

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