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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful look-up-by-search-result semantics and the expectation of returning a URL to present to the user. It says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id or bank, or about rate limits, which would raise this above a 3.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the source of the inputs, then the user-facing action. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to establish purpose, input provenance, and how to present results, and it does all three. The one gap is the unmentioned language parameter and any not-found behavior, which are minor for a simple read 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 100%, so both required parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that bank and id come from offers_search_offers, which is mildly additive. The optional language parameter (ka/en, default en) is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('Returns the full conditions of one offer of a Georgian bank'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back, and it implicitly distinguishes itself from offers_search_offers by dealing with a single offer rather than a search. It stops just short of 5 because 'full conditions' remains generic about the payload, though the output schema covers that.

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 names the prerequisite workflow explicitly: take the bank and the id from offers_search_offers, which routes the agent to the sibling search tool first. It also gives an output-handling instruction (surface the offer URL with the conditions). No when-not-to-use case is stated, so it is clear context rather than full exclusions.

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