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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful content-level context — that the record includes the source quote, last_verified timestamp, recorded changes, and containing packs — which matters because there is no output schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned-field detail packed into the tail. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned payload is the right call and it does so. Coverage is good for a single-parameter lookup; error behavior for an unknown id and any response size caveats are not mentioned but are minor.

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% and the schema states where the id comes from ('Offer id from find_credits or a pack'). The description's example id ('deepgram-200-credit') adds a little format intuition but no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: fetches the full record for a single Perq offer by id. It names the resource scope (one offer), gives an example id format, and enumerates what the record contains, distinguishing it from search-style siblings like find_credits.

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?

Usage is implied — call this when you already have an offer id and need the full record, as opposed to searching. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_credits or get_pack, and no exclusions. The pointer to the id's origin lives in the schema, not the description.

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