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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds real value beyond them by disclosing the behavioral filter ('currently active discount codes') and the return content (discount code and percentage off), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of any pagination or result-ordering detail.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries distinct information (purpose, trigger, return shape, linking guidance). Minor redundancy between 'currently active discount codes' and 'their active discount code' keeps it from a 5.

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 description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (discount code, percentage off) and telling the agent how to link results via websiteUrl or peerpushUrl. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented 2-param schema, an agent has everything needed to call 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 100%, so both parameters (limit, category) are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter — the websiteUrl/peerpushUrl sentence concerns returned fields, not inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) plus resource (products on PeerPush) narrowed by a concrete condition (currently active discount codes), which cleanly separates it from siblings like peerpush_trending, peerpush_new_launches, and peerpush_find_product. An agent can route a deals/discounts/coupons request without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the trigger context: 'Relevant when the user asks about software deals, discounts, coupons, or promotions.' That is a clear when-to-use signal, but it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not condition (e.g., how it differs from peerpush_trending when a trending product also has a discount).

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