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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it produces identical text output to get_offers() and is intended for visual display. It doesn't describe the exact rendering format or any side effects, but for a read-only render tool with annotations, this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, then gives usage guidance and parameter delegation in two more sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and the reference to get_offers() avoids redundant parameter documentation.

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 simple read-only render tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it renders, when to use it, and how it relates to get_offers(). The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the visual card's content or behavior beyond 'interactive', but the reference to get_offers() implies the same data is displayed.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter (language) with a default of 'de'. The description says args are identical to get_offers() and defers to that tool for full parameter docs, which is a reasonable delegation. However, it doesn't explicitly state what language values are accepted or how the language parameter affects the output, so the agent must look up get_offers() to understand it fully.

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 renders an interactive offers card for a specific property and location, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_offers() by noting it is for visual display. The verb 'render' plus the resource 'offers card' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 says to call this tool when the user wants to SEE the offers visually, typically after get_offers() has confirmed there is something worth showing. It also names the sibling get_offers() as the alternative for non-visual text output, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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