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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 30-day lookback window, the pricing-integrity constraint that excludes fake 'was' prices, and the geographic framing (UAE/Dubai). It does not mention result ordering or pagination, but that gap is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the data semantics, the second gives intent-matching example queries. The defining constraint is front-loaded before the usage examples.

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?

For a two-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what set of products is returned and enough pricing semantics to interpret the result. It leaves the exact return shape and ordering implicit, which is the only remaining gap.

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% with only two optional parameters, so the schema already explains limit (1-25, default 10) and the optional category slug/name. The description contributes no additional meaning to either parameter, and per the baseline rule a 3 is correct 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 precise resource and an unusually specific filter: products cheaper now than in the last 30 days and priced well against their usual price. The 'no inflated was prices' clause defines the semantic that separates it from a generic search_products listing, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings 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 explicit trigger phrases ('what is on sale', 'any deals on headphones', 'best discounts in Dubai today') that map directly to user intent, which is strong positive routing. It stops short of naming when not to use it (e.g., a specific-model lookup should go to get_product/search_products), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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