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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: prices stay in original currencies while buyer ordering uses EUR conversion, and no purchase or affiliate visit is triggered. That is real added context about side effects and data shape, though the freshness/caching mechanism is only gestured at as 'fresh'.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, filtering, currency, no-affiliate note), with the core purpose front-loaded. Slightly dense phrasing but no filler.

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?

With five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should do more: exclude_keyshops is unexplained, the shop_type/exclude_keyshops overlap is ambiguous, and what a returned offer entry contains is not described beyond pricing currency.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain slug (must be a confirmed GameDeal slug), platform and shop_type filtering, and limit ordering—but it never mentions exclude_keyshops, its interaction with shop_type, or the enum values, leaving one parameter fully undocumented.

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+resource: 'Get fresh, in-stock public offers for a confirmed GameDeal slug.' It also scopes the result set (public, in-stock) so it is distinguishable from get_price_history and search_games, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'confirmed GameDeal slug' implies a prerequisite lookup step before calling, and 'Open the GameDeal page to choose a shop' sketches the follow-up flow. However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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