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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the 7-day recency window, that giveaways are free to enter, and that draw dates and entry links are included.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted wording, and the core 'what's new' framing is front-loaded before the qualifying details.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is not clarifying that the limit and category filters apply only to new drops, not giveaways.

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 the limit and category parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting the 7-day recency window, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and scope: in-stock products Drop Beacon first saw in the last 7 days, plus live giveaways with draw dates and entry links. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like deal_check or top_deals.

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?

Usage is implied by 'What's new in EDC right now,' giving a reasonable sense of when to call it. However, it never states when not to use it or points agents to alternatives such as top_deals or search_products.

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