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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context (per-offer company counts) but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether an empty result is possible.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the identity of the resource comes first and the usage rule second. Every clause carries information.

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 no-param, read-only list tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description tells the agent what it returns and when to call it. Only the absence of any return-shape or pagination note keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what it already does. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Names the resource precisely ("servizi, prodotti e cataloghi che l'organizzazione vende") and even characterizes the payload by noting each offer includes how many companies it fits. It also name-drops the sibling offerte_salva to draw the read/write boundary, though the verb is only implied via "Leggile".

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?

"Leggile prima di offerte_salva, per non duplicarle" gives an explicit precondition and the alternative that triggers it, which is more than most tools offer. It lacks any when-not-to-use case, but the workflow instruction is unambiguous.

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