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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful result semantics (what is returned: landed price, percent off, retailer, product URL) and the retailer-board ranking rule, but says nothing about pagination, empty-result behavior, or cost of a broad query without filters.

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 sentences, roughly 55 words, front-loaded with the core action and the board distinction before the return-value summary. The mode explanation partly restates the schema's mode description, a small redundancy, but the rest is dense and 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?

For an 8-parameter, zero-required list tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies purpose, mode semantics, ranking, and return fields. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation from search_gear and get_product_offers, which an agent would need to pick this tool confidently.

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%, including the landed-cost composition for country and the category/subcategory dependency, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces the mode parameter's two boards and adds the ranking rule for retailer mode, but contributes nothing new about size, limit, min_discount_pct, or retailer filtering.

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?

"List motorcycle gear currently discounted on ALLR" gives a specific verb and resource, and the two-board framing (default MSRP board vs mode='retailer') narrows the scope further. It never names the siblings it competes with (search_gear, get_product_offers), so an agent must infer the boundary from the catalog rather than from the text.

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 description clearly routes between the two internal modes: default MSRP board for below-list pricing versus mode='retailer' for store-cut prices ranked by that store's percentage. That is genuine when-to-use guidance, but it stops at intra-tool selection and offers no exclusion or alternative for general gear searching or per-product offer lookup, which the sibling tools cover.

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