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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and not read-only, but the description adds value by stating 'as draft', suggesting it's safe and not final. However, no further behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits are disclosed.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the key purpose and essential details. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, nested objects, enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level summary but lacks details like default state or behavior when optional fields are omitted. Output schema might compensate but is not shown.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description briefly mentions trigger type, conditions, and products, which maps to existing schema properties but does not add new meaning 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?

Description clearly states the action (create) and resource (offer rule) with a specific context (upsell/cross-sell as draft). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_offer_rules and get_offer_rule which are read-only.

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?

Description implies usage for creating a draft offer rule, and the context is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like updating an existing rule, but given the sibling list, no update tool exists, so it's sufficient.

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