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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important non-obvious trait that the endpoint is public and needs no bearer key. It omits what happens on an unknown/inactive merchant, whether results are paginated, and whether 'active' filters out expired offers — all meaningful for a no-annotation read tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the content summary front-loaded and the auth caveat second. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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 simple single-parameter read with no output schema, the description does sketch the return (offers, fixed prices, checkout IDs) and the auth posture. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing hint versus resolve_latest_merchant_offer in a dense sibling set.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'A merchant's ... offers' implies merchantId but adds no meaning about identifier format or behavior; the UUID pattern lives only in the schema with no explanation.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'List a merchant's active prepared-artifact offers' and it names the payload contents (fixed prices, checkout IDs). It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, resolve_latest_merchant_offer, so an agent must infer which one to call when it only wants one offer.

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 only implied: this is the discovery step that precedes buy_prepared_artifact, but the description never says so or names any alternative. The 'public and does not require a bearer key' line does help an unauthenticated agent decide it can call this at all.

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