Search credits and deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: eligibility is evaluated only from typed company facts and 'unknowns remain explicit', which warns the agent not to expect inferred or fabricated eligibility verdicts. It stops short of describing result shape or ranking, though the output schema covers returns.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the filtering/eligibility behavior second. The mid-sentence enumeration of deal types is slightly list-heavy but each item is a distinct searchable category, so it earns its space.

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 a full output schema and annotated safety profile, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the core selection signals: what is searched, how it is filtered, and how eligibility is judged. Only the relationship to compare_offers is left unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents facts, limit, query, entities and categories. The description reinforces which filters exist and adds the 'omit unknown facts' guidance, but adds little syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Search current startup credits and deals') and enumerates the resource subtypes (cloud credits, SaaS discounts, free tiers, grants, perks, partner offers). It does not differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling compare_offers, which is the one name an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

It implies usage ('Filter by query, vendor, or category and evaluate eligibility from typed company facts'), which tells the agent what inputs drive the search, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs compare_offers or the readiness/search_readiness siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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