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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the offer becomes a real deal only upon member confirmation, and that it's a standing default. This explains the deferred effect, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. The key action, example, and constraints are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the core purpose and key constraints but lacks details on the full 'by_role' structure, return values (none defined), and potential overrides. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions required parameters and gives a high-level example of the 'by_role' structure (e.g., staff 70/30). However, it does not detail the nested object's fields or constraints, leaving gaps for the complex parameter.

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 states the tool sets a community's standing ticket-split offer per member role, with a concrete example (70/30). It distinguishes this from individual deal tools by mentioning it's a default offer that becomes a real deal only upon confirmation.

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 mentions 'Admin-only' as a prerequisite and implies that this is a setup step, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'set_event_split_exception' or 'propose_deal'. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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