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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantive traits beyond that: no diagnosis, no request-text retention, no order creation, and three possible return classes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence where every clause conveys scope, return behavior, or safety constraint. There is no redundant repetition or wasted framing.

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 one-parameter qualification tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and interpret the return categories. No obvious operational details are missing.

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 only parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is already documented as the sanitized expected-versus-actual outcome. The description mirrors that meaning but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: matching one sanitized expected-versus-actual need to a Zinvyl offer, and names the returned outcomes. It distinguishes itself from list_offers and purchase/order tools by being the preferred read-only first action that creates no order.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: whenever a buyer provides one sanitized need, including after list_offers, and frames it as the preferred read-only first action. It does not spell out when-not conditions or name non-list_offers alternatives, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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