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

Beyond the annotations' safety profile, the description discloses the output artifact (.ics with an all-day event), its contents (how to claim, policy link), the exact alert schedule (3 days before and on the day), and statelessness ('Nothing is stored'). This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Front-loaded and dense with useful facts; the opening 'Price Drop Back.' brand repetition is the only wasted fragment. Everything else (return format, alert timing, statelessness) earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by explaining the returned .ics and its event contents, and covers statelessness and prerequisite context. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. failure behavior when no claim is found), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so all five parameters (item, store, member, country, purchase_date) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond this, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get -> calendar reminder for the last day to claim a price drop) and makes the artifact concrete: an .ics file for the store's last claim day. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling check_price_drop_claim, which produces the add_to_calendar link that leads here.

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?

The final sentence ('/v1/check gives this link as add_to_calendar when purchase_date is given and a claim is likely') establishes the context in which this tool is reached and the prerequisite of a likely claim, but it never states when NOT to use it or explicitly names the alternative tool being referenced.

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