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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description contributes real extra context: results are discount-oriented and prices should be treated as unverified until checked with compare_prices, implicitly flagging possible staleness. It does not mention region defaulting or result limits, so not a full 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the verification caveat. No filler, though the ambiguous 'by discount' phrasing costs a bit of clarity.

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 values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents region defaults and the price bound. The description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the cross-tool verification step. Minor gap around result volume/ordering is not material.

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 enums and defaults documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about country/max_price semantics and in fact references a 'discount' dimension that is not an exposed parameter, which is mildly confusing rather than additive.

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 (Find) and resource (discounted games) with the primary ordering/scoping dimension (discount) and the optional constraint (max price). It is distinguishable from get_game and search_games, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_games, the closest sibling.

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?

Adds a usable workflow rule — confirm price with compare_prices before asserting — which points the agent at the correct sibling for verification. It gives clear context for use but no explicit when-not-to-use condition or statement of what this tool covers that search_games does not.

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