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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the precondition and the structure of the returned data, which is helpful. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that packs purpose, precondition, and output summary. It is front-loaded and not verbose, though it uses domain-specific jargon that may reduce immediate readability.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown here), but the description provides a good verbal overview of the returned fields (banners, pos_count, product_urls, tenant offers). It also notes the precondition. Missing error handling or behavior when the decision is not allow/require_rx, but that is minor for a read-only, idempotent 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains decision_id as coming from gate_transaction and presentation_id implicitly, but does not explain tenant at all. The mention of 'tenant offers' hints at tenant's role, but it's not explicit. This is a moderate gap.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves availability data for a presentation, conditioned on a gate_transaction decision. It specifies the exact data returned (banners, pos_count, product_urls, tenant offers) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_price or get_item by focusing on availability after a gate decision.

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 explicitly defines the precondition: the tool should be used after gate_transaction has returned allow or require_rx, with the decision_id. This gives a clear temporal usage context. It does not name alternatives or when not to use it, but the precondition is a strong implicit guideline.

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