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.