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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the result contents (old/new price and discount) and by narrowing the effective market scope to nl/be. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. Every part adds scope, output content, or a usage restriction.

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 deal-list tool, the description covers the core return fields and the key usage restriction. However, there is no output schema, the winkel parameter remains unexplained, and no sibling guidance is provided, making the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 description clarifies the markt parameter by stating that the tool only works for nl/be, which is more restrictive than the schema enum. However, the winkel parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the description either, leaving a meaningful gap at 50% schema coverage.

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 identifies what the tool provides: current week-folder deals with old/new prices and discounts, restricted to nl/be. It is not a tautology and the resource is specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as actuele_sales.

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 gives an explicit market limitation ('alleen voor markt nl/be'), which helps the agent avoid de/fr/es despite the schema enum. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any alternative, so the usage guidance remains mostly implicit.

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