Dealerific

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool returns a list, that it is read-only, how results are ordered, or what the output structure looks like. 'With what each covers' describes content, not behavior.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless list tool and gets its point across efficiently.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape ambiguous—does it return article titles, summaries, full guides? It also omits any ordering or scope limitations. The content type is clear, but the caller experience is not fully specified.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively complete at 100%. There is no parameter detail for the description to add, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as buying guides and roundups published on the site and signals that each article's coverage is included. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate the tool from siblings like list_categories or search_deals, so it does not earn a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_categories or search_deals, and no exclusions are mentioned. The only implied usage is that it is for article-style content, which is weak and leaves routing decisions to the agent's inference.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only describes the payload, not what the tool does, whether it is read-only, how results are ordered, or what a request implies. This leaves behavioral assumptions to the agent.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler words dove. It is easy to scan, though it omits a verb and could be slightly more explicit about the action.

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 zero-parameter listing tool this is minimally viable, and the description gives a basic sense of the returned content. However, without an output schema or usage guidance, an agent has limited information about expected results or when this tool is the right choice.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully described by an empty object, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds some meaning by indicating the returned data includes categories and stores.

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 identifies a specific resource, deal categories, and adds a scope qualifier: categories with the stores currently carrying deals. This distinguishes it from sibling list_articles by subject matter, though it is phrased as a noun fragment and relies on the tool name for the 'list' action.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use list_categories versus list_articles or search_deals, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The 'currently carrying deals' phrase hints at current data but does not explain selection criteria or context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds that links are affiliate links and that each deal includes title, price, store, and link, which is useful. It does not disclose read-only behavior, sorting, or time-sensitivity beyond the word 'current', so some behavioral traits remain uncovered.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then clarify output content and affiliate links. No wasted words; the structure is easy to scan.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape and an important behavioral caveat (affiliate links). It omits explicit guidance on using list_categories for category slugs, but the schema covers that parameter, so the description is mostly 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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'filterable by category and store', which duplicates schema fields. 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 identifies the tool as dealing with current deals and lists key fields, which distinguishes it from list_articles and list_categories. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement; the action of searching is only in the tool name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use search_deals versus its siblings. The description doesn't mention that list_categories provides valid category slugs or that this tool is for deal discovery. It's implied by the name, but not stated, so an agent gets no explicit routing context.

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