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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no provider call or payment,' which communicates the core behavioral trait (no side effects, no cost). It also enumerates the scope of what can be inspected (identity, contract, pricing, etc.), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only discover operation.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence identifies the tool and its purpose with a precise enumeration of inspection dimensions. The second sentence adds the critical behavioral qualifier ('Read-only; no provider call or payment'). No wasted words, and structure supports quick parsing.

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 tool is simple (0 params) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the behavioral contract and the scope of inspection. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly naming the companion invoke tool or stating 'use this to evaluate before invoking,' but it is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the baseline for 0 params, this is a 4. The description's list of inspected aspects (e.g., pricing, runtime, failure) adds contextual richness but is not needed for parameter understanding. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('product_public_offer_snapshot_v0') and the action ('Discover and inspect' a capability). It distinguishes from sibling discover tools by naming the specific capability, and the 'Read-only; no provider call or payment' line clarifies this is a metadata inspection rather than an invocation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with invoke tools, but the verb choice makes the distinction apparent.

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 context is implied rather than stated. The description says 'Read-only; no provider call or payment' which suggests this is for discovering/inspecting rather than executing, but it never explicitly says 'when to use this vs invoke_* tools' or names siblings as alternatives. An agent can infer the appropriate use case, but the guidance is not explicit.

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