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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions internal previews and historical allowances, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency behavior, permissions, whether an allowance is consumed, or what happens after invocation.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the usage condition and follows with the alternative, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with three required parameters, a nested input object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It adequately routes between run_offer and create_checkout, but does not provide enough behavioral or parameter detail for confident invocation.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for offer_id, input, or idempotency_key. With three required parameters including a nested input object, the definition leaves parameter usage entirely undocumented.

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 ('bounded offer') and operation intent ('Use an existing internal preview or historical allowance'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from create_checkout for new purchases. It is clear enough to select the tool, though the exact effect of 'use' is not fully specified.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: use run_offer for existing previews or historical allowances, and use create_checkout for new purchases. This is direct when/when-not guidance.

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