Show available bundles, deals, and ask about discount codes. Use when a customer asks about deals, bundles, savings, or says 'do you have any discounts?' Also use when multiple items are in cart to suggest bundle savings. Always ask if the customer has a discount code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discount_code | No | Customer's discount code if they have one |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly=true and destructive=false. The description adds context about asking for discount codes, which is conversational. No contradictions, but could clarify that it does not actually apply discounts.
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, each with a clear purpose: definition of tool, usage triggers, and an actionable instruction. No extraneous 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers when, what, and the key behavior. Could mention that discounts are not applied by this tool, but overall complete.
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% with parameter 'discount_code' described. The description adds value by linking the parameter to the action of asking the customer, providing behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool shows bundles, deals, and asks about discount codes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like recommend or check_inventory.
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?
Explicitly specifies when to use: when customers ask about deals, bundles, savings, or have discount codes, and when multiple items are in cart. Also gives an imperative to always ask for a discount code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is clear overlap between 'recommend' and the deprecated 'skincare_recommend', and 'shop' as a routing tool could be ambiguous with 'search_products' and 'recommend'. Descriptions help but are not fully disambiguating.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (e.g., check_inventory, compare_products), while others are single words (shop) or use a noun prefix (skincare_cart, skincare_recommend). The deprecated duplicate 'skincare_recommend' further disrupts consistency.
14 tools is well within the 3-15 range and covers the necessary functions for a skincare commerce server: product lookup, search, recommendation, comparison, compatibility, inventory, checkout, deals, research notes, and issue reporting. No excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers core commerce workflows: browsing, product details, recommendations, checkout, deals, and compatibility checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., order history or user profile management) but are outside the apparent scope. The deprecated duplicate is a minor inefficiency.