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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific output ('acceptance tests and evidence boundaries') but does not elaborate on what 'evidence boundaries' means or any limitations. It adds some context beyond annotations but lacks depth, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, object, and scope immediately, making it easy to scan. Every word 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. The term 'evidence boundaries' is domain-specific and unexplained, and the agent might not know what the return structure looks like. While annotations cover safety, the description does not fully define the output's nature, so a 3 reflects the missing clarity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It only implies that the offer_id corresponds to a 'published offer', but does not explicitly define the parameter or its format. The enum values are cryptic and the description does not decode them. This is insufficient compensation for the total lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('acceptance tests and evidence boundaries'), and scope ('one published offer'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_offers (listing offers) and prepare_purchase_route (routing), and the agent can immediately infer the tool's role.

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 clear context: it is for a single published offer, which implies the caller must have an offer_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings or any exclusions. Since the context is unambiguous but alternatives are not addressed, this earns a 4.

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