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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sort field options and the set of returned fields (titles, slugs, excerpts, authors, dates, categories, tags, paging totals), but these largely overlap the input schema's order_by values and the output schema, and it discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, or pagination limits beyond what the schema states.

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 purpose, then filters, then sort, then the sibling routing clause — a logical order. It is compact with no filler, though it is essentially one long sentence, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes them; annotations cover read-only status and all seven params are documented with no required ones. It leaves only minor gaps (pagination limits, default ordering behavior) that the schema also does not fully close.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented with their semantics and the schema points to /retailmenot/blog-tags and /retailmenot/blog-categories for slug values. The description restates the filter set but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Search and list RetailMeNot blog posts") and immediately scopes it to the supported filters (query, category slug, tag slug) and sort orders. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'retailmenot_blog_post' by directing the agent there for the full article, so an agent can tell them apart 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ("Use retailmenot_blog_post for the full article"), which is real routing guidance. It does not spell out when to prefer one filter mode (query vs category vs tag) or when to fall back to the category/tag listing tools, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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