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

Beyond the supplied annotations, the description discloses the billing/entitlement constraint (free, requires Pro plan or higher) and the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v2/hook-studio/offers), which are traits an agent cannot obtain from the annotations. It does not describe result ordering or pagination, but for a read-only list that is a minor omission.

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?

Three short clauses with the read-only marker and resource front-loaded, followed by filter values and cost/plan constraints. Every element carries information; the parenthetical endpoint wrapper is the only marginally decorative piece.

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 two-parameter, read-only list with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, filter values, entitlement requirements, and the backing endpoint. What remains unexplained — default ordering, result volume, and how a brand-bound key resolves brandId — is modest but not fully covered.

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?

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely useful context: the tool is free but requires the Pro plan or higher, and only the three listed statuses are valid. Against the 50% schema coverage, the brandId semantics live entirely in the schema, and the status enumeration in the description merely repeats the enum without explaining what each state means. Partial compensation, not full.

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 the resource precisely — the brand's offer bank — and names the filter dimension (status: draft, confirmed, retired), so an agent knows this is a brand-level offer listing, distinct from offers_capture/offers_update. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from ads_offers_list, which is the one sibling most likely to be confused with it.

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: you call this to browse the offer bank, optionally narrowed by status. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ads_offers_list, nor any exclusion or prerequisite flow beyond the plan requirement. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing help against the closest alternative.

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