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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail (country=GB restricts output to UK policies), but says nothing about result size, freshness, or card-protection coverage nuances. Modest added value over 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?

It is short and packs use-cases plus the country behavior into a few sentences. The opening tagline ("Price Drop Back. Every store covered, plus card price protection.") partially duplicates the title and is slightly promotional, but it is front-loaded and not wasteful overall.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition supplies the essential usage triggers and the one parameter's effect. Nothing critical is missing, though it could state that it returns multiple stores to further separate it from the single-policy sibling.

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 the country parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the GB behavior ("With country=GB, lists the UK policies") without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

The description conveys a listing scope ("Every store covered, plus card price protection") and later uses a verb ("lists the UK policies"), so an agent can infer this returns the set of stores/card protections. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling pricedropback_get_store_policy (single-store lookup), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides concrete trigger examples ("which stores give you money back if the price drops?" and "does my credit card have price protection?"), which gives an agent clear context for when to reach for this tool. It does not name an alternative tool or state any exclusions, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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