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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: no account required, amounts in USD, and an 'ask rather than guess' instruction for missing required inputs. It stops short of describing output structure, but most return detail is implied by the description itself.

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?

Front-loads the core question and the returns, then the inputs, then exclusions. Sentence count is moderately high and some phrasing is conversational, but each sentence carries selection or invocation information and none is 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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (rate comparison, published-rate comparison, suggested counter-offer), which inputs are mandatory, and how to handle gaps. Complete for an 8-parameter analytical tool.

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 coverage is 100% including enum value explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description adds scope framing ('the whole scope', audience size, usage rights, exclusivity or rush), the USD unit, and the default/omission conventions, giving modest value beyond 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('check a brand offer', get where the offer sits against Selah's rate, how it compares with published rates) and clearly contrasts with a pure rate lookup by centering on evaluating a specific received offer. An agent can select this over selah_rate_benchmark without opening either schema.

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?

Gives example utterances ('a brand offered me $400 for a Reel, is that fair'), states the required inputs, and explicitly excludes contracts, legal/tax advice, brand finding, and UGC/affiliate/commission-only pricing. When-to-use and when-not are both spelled out.

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