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

Annotations only mark the operation as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: cost ('800 micro-dollar service credits per successful call'), authentication requirements, and billing semantics ('a new requestId is a new billable operation'). This is exactly the kind of stateful, side-effect disclosure that annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentences with no fluff: the first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the next states cost, and the third covers the prerequisite, auth, and recovery semantics. Every sentence carries necessary 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?

The description covers the non-obvious operational aspects: the mandatory prepare call, credits, auth header, recovery reuse, and billing tied to requestId. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need elaboration; minor gaps like the role of baseUrl are acceptable.

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 schema already describes requestId and maxPriceMicroUsd, but input has no description. The description adds meaning by specifying the input as 'JSON-LD HTML' and by tying maxPriceMicroUsd to the 800 micro-dollar per-call cost, clarifying the debit cap. It does not describe baseUrl or maxOffers, but those are relatively self-evident and constrained by the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('bounded Product offers from supplied JSON-LD HTML') and lists distinctive outputs (source pointers, missing-price warnings, aggregate ranges). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling commerce/html tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 explicit prerequisites and sequencing: 'First use agent_utilities_prepare', requires existing credits and a private Authorization header, and recommends reusing prepared arguments for recovery. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of full 5.

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