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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, and the description adds useful context: it returns merchant IDs plus the existing Work Ticket grant path, and explicitly says no assignment, quote or payment is created. That clarifies both output shape and side-effect boundaries beyond the annotation alone.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by filtering guidance and return/side-effect details, so every sentence 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?

The description covers purpose, return values, and the read-only nature of the operation, which is important given there is no output schema. However, it is incomplete for actual invocation because most parameters and pagination behavior are undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only addresses capability and result format (contentType). It leaves query, limit, and cursor unexplained, including pagination behavior, which is a significant gap for a search tool.

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?

It uses a specific verb and resource: finding active merchants that accept fresh scoped work without a prepared artifact. The scope is clear, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling search_merchants, which could leave an agent unsure which search to call.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: active merchants accepting scoped work without requiring a prepared artifact. It does not name alternatives such as search_merchants or discover_merchant_offers, and it gives no explicit exclusions.

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