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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by describing a read-only listing operation. It adds meaningful behavioral context: results include 'currently active discount codes', an active discount code, and percentage off, which explains the tool's output scope beyond just 'list products'.

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 concise and well-structured: a concise opening statement of function, a relevance/trigger statement, and a short summary of output content. Every sentence adds useful information, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how it differs from sibling tools like peerpower_trending or peer new_launches, but that gap is already partially addressed by the relevance statement on sales and coupons.

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%, so the input schema already documents limit and category with clear descriptions. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics and adds no detail beyond what the schema provides; thus 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and identifies the exact resource ('products on PeerPush with currently active discount codes'), making its purpose immediately clear. It also specifies the return value (active discount code and percentage off), which aligns with the tool name and title without being a tautology.

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 explicitly states when the tool is relevant: when the user asks about software deals, discounts, coupons, or promotions. This provides clear contextual use, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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