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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it splits discovery candidates from RevenueGuard-approved offers and enforces distribution rights per surface, which is not derivable from the schema or annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Returns discovery candidates') and packs the two key qualifiers—RevenueGuard approval and per-surface rights enforcement—into a tight structure. Every phrase contributes meaning, even if the jargon reduces immediate clarity.

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 output schema covers return shape and annotations cover safety, so those aspects do not need description. However, the description omits usage guidance and enough parameter semantics for an agent to reliably invoke it correctly, especially the surface enum and how 'separately' manifests in the response. For a 3-parameter read tool, this is a minimally viable but incomplete definition.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain the 'query' format, how 'limit' behaves, or the meaning of the 'surface' enum values beyond implying surface affects distribution rights. The phrase 'per surface' gives surface some contextual meaning, but limit and query remain purely name-based.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies concrete resources: 'discovery candidates' and 'RevenueGuard-approved monetizable offers.' It also conveys a distinguishing trait—separating these categories and enforcing per-surface distribution rights—which sets it apart from broader siblings like get_offers or search_candidates. However, the phrase 'separately from' is slightly ambiguous about whether both categories are returned or only discovery candidates, and 'RevenueGuard' is unexplained jargon, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states behavior but does not tell the agent whether to select this over get_offers, search_candidates, or verify_solution. An agent would have to infer the use case from the tool name and vague description, which is insufficient.

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