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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the result payload fields (customer_price, payout, lead_bonus, stock, sale_rate_percent) and the actual meaning of 'best_selling'. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or how the default in_stock_only filter affects result counts.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the resource identity before return fields and sort semantics. Every sentence carries new 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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema and no required args, the description correctly fills the biggest gap by describing the returned fields. It does not clarify whether the response includes total/page metadata, which matters for a paginated search, but otherwise an agent has what it needs.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by defining sale_rate_percent as 'the share of orders that get delivered' and by tying sort=best_selling to that metric, clarifying both the sort option and min_sale_rate more precisely than the schema's terse 'by sale rate'.

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 and resource — 'Search the catalog of active offers' — and glosses it as 'products the partner can promote', which immediately separates it from get_offer (single offer) and list_orders. It also enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows what a call yields before opening the schema.

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 discovery/browsing usage but never states when to prefer this over get_offer or the list_* siblings, nor any prerequisites. The only conditional guidance ('sort=best_selling orders offers by...') is about a parameter, not about tool selection.

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