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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires the 'write offers' scope and notes the product must already exist. It does not describe error behavior, side effects, or return values, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 focused, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action and resource; the second provides purpose and required scope. No wasted words.

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?

Despite a complex 15-parameter schema and no output schema, the description only covers purpose and scope. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid request because required fields, parameter semantics, and behavioral outcomes are not explained.

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 there are 15 parameters, with only names, types, and enums provided. The description gives no parameter-level guidance, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Cria uma oferta (preço alternativo) para um produto existente na Cakto.' It clearly differentiates the create action from sibling list/get/update tools by emphasizing creation of an alternative-price offer as a prerequisite for order bumps.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'É o passo necessário para ter o que oferecer num order bump com preço diferente do principal.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as cakto_offers_update.

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