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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral fact is the post-handoff availability constraint; it says nothing about latency, partial results, or what an empty measurement set means.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the gating condition immediately after. The only waste is the 'read the till' metaphor, which costs a few words without adding information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here, and with one parameter plus full safety annotations the surface is small. The remaining gap is how an agent obtains a valid handoff_id, which the description gestures at but does not close.

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% for handoff_id, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. It mentions a 'campaign id for a handoff' rather than handoff_id itself, which hints at the workflow origin of the value but never clarifies the identifier's source, format, or relationship to the campaign id.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: read/pull campaign results returned by the retailer's program, which is distinguishable from sibling tools like quote_package or gate_transaction. The 'read the till' metaphor is colorful but adds ambiguity rather than precision, and no sibling is named explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Gives an unambiguous precondition: only callable after the program returns a campaign id for a handoff. That is clear context for when the tool is valid, but it names no alternative and does not say what to do if the handoff has not completed.

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