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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what the response contains (value, applicable plans, exceptions, source sentence, check date, purchase link) and the truncation behavior for long products. It could say more about pagination or limits, but this is solid added value.

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?

Front-loaded with the when/not-when decision before the description of contents, which is the right ordering. Three sentences, each earning its place, though the closing sentence about long products is slightly cryptic and the middle sentence is dense with a long enumeration.

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-value structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description nonetheless summarizes the payload and the truncation edge case. Together with routing guidance this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around result limits or pagination.

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 100% and the schema itself states 'Give exactly one of offer_id or product_id', so parameter semantics are fully documented structurally. The description only loosely implies single-entity scope ('one plan or product') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb+resource ('get every recorded condition, pricing rule and source sentence of one plan or product') and scopes it to a single entity. It distinguishes itself from siblings check_conditions and search by naming them explicitly. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this when' condition (need all recorded conditions of one plan/product found by search or named by user) and a 'Do not use this when' exclusion that routes to search or check_conditions for workload comparison. Both positive and negative cases are covered with named alternatives.

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