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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the useful fact that results mix platform-wide and restaurant-specific campaigns, but omits whether results are limited to today (as the title implies) or how they are ordered/filtered by validity.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clarifying example — nothing wasted. It is perhaps over-lean for the amount of missing guidance, but the structure itself is clean.

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 two fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the core is covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what a campaign entry looks like or whether only currently valid campaigns are returned. Adequate, with a clear gap around return content and time scope.

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%: 'ilce' is documented as accepting a district name or slug, and 'mahalle' as an optional neighbourhood that localizes price and delivery. The description contributes nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('kampanyalar') and its scope precisely: district-level platform-wide campaigns plus restaurant campaigns, with a concrete example ('700 TL üstü ücretsiz teslimat'). This makes the content distinguishable from price-comparison siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with tools like en_cok_tasarruf or hangi_uygulama_ucuz.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: it does not say whether to call this before or instead of the savings/comparison tools, nor does it state any precondition. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'İlçedeki', leaving the agent to infer routing.

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