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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already in annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'A brand match never establishes region or product eligibility' and 'Unknown brands return found:false.' These state important data semantics that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 two compact sentences with no filler, front-loading the core retrieval purpose and then adding the two most important caveats. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

The tool is simple, the schema is fully described, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers the key caveats and unknown-brand behavior, making it complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says, such as brand or alias and the eligibility caveat for region/product. It adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('a brand or alias'), and lists the exact returned content: published code/link, offer type, instructions and caveats. The phrase 'one brand offer' in the title and the focus on a single brand clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single brand's offer by brand name or alias, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_brands or search_codes. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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