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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: offers are 'published', prices are snapshotted with observed_at, and they are 'not live.' This prevents the agent from assuming real-time pricing.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat about non-live prices is included without bloating the description.

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 read-only, idempotent listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential decision points: what entities are returned, the filtering concept, and the pricing freshness caveat. It does not exhaustively explain every parameter, but the schema supplies constraints and enums, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 should compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It only partially does: 'per racket' hints at slug usage and 'retailer offers' hints at the retailer filter, but it does not explain snapshot_version, limit/offset semantics, or the meaning of null values. The schema's titles and defaults carry most of the burden.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('published retailer offers per racket'), and adds a distinctive constraint ('prices carry observed_at and are not live'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_racket, search_rackets, and compare_rackets, which serve overlapping but different purposes.

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 makes the intended use clear: use this tool when you need retailer offers or pricing for a racket. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_racket or search_rackets, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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