JoinTheDeal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing what a group deal result covers (goal buyers, deal length, inclusions, region, payment and tax terms), which matters since no output schema exists. It says nothing about behavior for a missing or invalid id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose plus lookup key are front-loaded ahead of the supplementary field list. Every clause carries 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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and sketches the return contents for group deals. The only meaningful omission is what happens on an unknown id, which is minor at this complexity.

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%; the single id parameter is already documented in the schema as "Deal id from search_deals." The description repeats that meaning rather than adding format or constraint detail, so 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 a specific verb and resource ("Full details of one deal") plus the lookup key ("by its id"), and it points at search_deals as the origin of that id. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with request_group_deal, so the sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

The parenthetical "(from search_deals)" implies the workflow — search first, then fetch by id — but usage is only implied. There is no statement of when not to use it or when request_group_deal is the correct alternative instead.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is fully covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the returned metadata — deal counts and a last-updated freshness marker — which is genuinely useful for deciding whether to trust or re-fetch results. It stops short of describing ordering or list shape.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the scoping condition before the returned fields. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the response, and it only gestures at the shape: it doesn't say whether sellers are nested under categories, what the counts count, or how the freshness stamp is formatted. Adequate for a simple read tool, but not fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter meaning for the description to compensate for.

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 fragment names the exact resource (categories and sellers) and narrows scope to those 'that currently have deals', which is meaningfully different from get_deal/search_deals. It also specifies the payload fields (counts, last-updated), so an agent knows what comes back. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the name/title for the action, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 statement of when to call this versus search_deals or get_deal, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance. At best a discovery role is implied by 'currently have deals', leaving the agent to infer that this is a browse/step-one tool.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the tool submits nothing, collects no personal information, and merely hands the user a link they complete themselves, plus what happens downstream when demand accumulates.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the privacy/no-submission clarification, then brief background on the group-pricing mechanism. Every sentence carries information, though the privacy point and the 'user fills in the form themselves' point overlap slightly.

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 one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description does the right work: it explains that the return value is a link and that no side effect occurs. It could be marginally more complete by stating the expected link format or how the agent should present it, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single optional 'item' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the prohibition on personal data. The description's phrase 'for a product the user wants' restates the parameter rather than adding format, length, or example guidance, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the link to JoinTheDeal's group-deal request form.' Because the output is a link rather than a deal, it is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like get_deal and search_deals, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a product the user wants' and by the framing that the user must fill the form themselves, so an agent can infer this is for unmet demand rather than browsing existing deals. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as search_deals for finding deals that already exist.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it names the return fields (name, seller, price text as shown by the seller, checked date, expiry, links) in the absence of an output schema, and it states the expired-offer default and the California-focused coverage.

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, front-loaded with what is searched and what it spans, followed by filters and then output/exclusion rules. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical focus note and return-field listing could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the return-field summary is essential and present, and the expired-offer default is called out. For a 9-parameter read-only search tool the only notable gaps are pagination/limit behavior and result ordering, which an agent might want before calling it.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters well, including the event format pointer to list_categories and the min_price caveat about offers without a single dollar price. The description only restates the filter set at a high level, adding no syntax, matching behavior, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Search current JoinTheDeal deals") and defines the two content sets it spans: group deals sold by JoinTheDeal and Deal Finder offers on sellers' own sites, with a geographic scope note. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings get_deal or list_categories, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it short of 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?

It lists the available filter dimensions (keywords, category, event, seller, price range) which implies when to reach for it, and it explains the default exclusion of expired offers. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_deal or list_categories, and no statement of prerequisites.

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