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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that only 'live' offers appear and that validity windows are included, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination or how page/page_size interact. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this lands at an adequate 3.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the resource, its payload, and the filter/mode options, with no padding. It is dense enough that the pagination story is squeezed out, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be re-explained, and the description still summarizes the key fields. For a 7-param, none-required read tool the main gap is pagination behavior and locale handling, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents locale, clinic_id, item_slug, item_type and offer_id. The description restates the same filter names without adding format or semantics, and it omits page/page_size entirely (the undocumented ones in the schema). Baseline 3 fits.

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 ('The live offers (campaigns)') and clarifies the payload (each treatment or product, price before/after, validity). It also disambiguates the dual mode by noting 'offer_id reads one offer', separating list from single-fetch. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like search_treatments or search_products.

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 filter set (clinic_id, item_type, item_slug) and the offer_id single-read path imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not or comparison to sibling search/browse tools. An agent must infer that this is for live pricing rather than catalogue discovery.

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