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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'Data is live from the property management system' indicates real-time data, and 'data-only version' clarifies that it returns raw data rather than a visual presentation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is efficient: three sentences plus a structured Args block. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides usage and parameter details. No redundant or filler content; 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?

For a tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description covers what the tool returns (special deals, packages, seasonal promotions), notes the live data source, and routes the agent to the visual card tool. There is enough information to correctly invoke the tool and interpret the high-level result.

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?

The schema provides no description for the language parameter (coverage 0%), so the description fully compensates by specifying the allowed values ('de' default, 'en') and the intended usage ('match the conversation language'). This is complete for a single-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'active seasonal offers', and identifies the specific property and location. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly calling out the data-only nature and referencing the render_offers_card alternative. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'This is the data-only version — for a visual offers card, call render_offers_card() with the same arguments after reviewing this result.' It also advises matching the conversation language for the language parameter, giving clear operational guidance.

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