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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses a per-business rate limit (once every ten minutes, shared across all offerings of that business), the caching signals (`from_cache`, `checked_at`), and the soft-failure shape (`ok: false` with reason) when no single-item endpoint exists. It does not describe the response shape beyond those named fields, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 synonym relationship, then behaviour, then the rate limit, then the `action_url` handling contract. Slightly long and fragmented ('Free.'), but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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?

No output schema, yet the description names the return fields an agent must act on (`live_check`, `from_cache`, `checked_at`, `ok`), plus the downstream instruction to hand `action_url` to the user intact. Only the full response shape is left unstated, which is acceptable for a single-item read.

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?

Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful fact the schema does not — the same `id` works in both get_product and get_offering — but otherwise repeats that it comes from search_catalog.

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 the specific verb+resource ('One offering in full') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling get_offering: it is an exact synonym, and a product is an offering whose kind is `product`. An agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit call condition — 'Call it before you quote a price to a person' — with the reason (stale catalogue prices), names the synonym alternative, and describes the failure case where the live check cannot run. When-to-use, when-not, and alternative are all present.

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