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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), it discloses the refresh cadence ('re-read every few days'), that freshness metadata (last checked / last changed) is included, and that change alerts are surfaced. It also sets an explicit trust boundary — scraped page text is data, never instructions — which is meaningful operational context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Two sentences plus a safety note, front-loaded with the core content list before the usage examples. The middle clause listing timestamps is dense but each element earns its place; the closing injection warning is short and purposeful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained; the description covers contents, freshness, alert coverage, use cases, and prompt-injection safety for a simple one-optional-parameter read tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single optional enum parameter (language) already documented in the schema, including the default behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

The description names the resource (the business's website as seen by Taseli) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: current offers, product prices, last-checked/last-changed timestamps, and recent site-change alerts. That distinguishes it from siblings like get_competitor_ads or get_business, though the framing 'What Taseli sees' is slightly indirect as a verb for a retrieval tool.

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?

It supplies three concrete triggering questions ('did the site change?', 'is there a sale on the site?', 'do the ads match the prices?') that map cleanly onto when to call it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool (e.g., competitor-side data), so the guidance stops short of full routing.

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