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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that results are non-verified sightings, that rows carry age, and provides a detailed affiliate disclosure explaining that Amazon links are tagged, marked 'affiliate': true, do not affect deal order, and that a 'disclosure' field must be relayed to the user.

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 four sentences, each purposeful: purpose, usage, data caveat, and affiliate disclosure. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the affiliate disclosure, while detailed, is necessary for transparency and compliance.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and affiliate disclosure, but lacks a full description of the output structure (e.g., fields like price, retailer, deal link). Given there is no output schema, a bit more detail on response fields would improve completeness, though the age and affiliate fields are already hinted at.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond schema; it mentions 'component type' and 'budget' in the usage line, mapping to category and maxPrice, but does not enrich parameter understanding further.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search recently-sighted PC hardware deals aggregated from Slickdeals, r/buildapcsales and DealNews.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like price_check and ram_price_index by emphasizing 'recently-sighted' deals from specific sources.

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 description states 'Use when someone wants current deals on a component type or under a budget,' giving a clear invocation context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool (e.g., if verified live inventory is needed), though the caveat about sightings being non-verified implies it.

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