PostThisDeal Handpicked Deals

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: stale checks trigger a rate-limited background check, only one check runs per deal at a time, and a pending result includes retry timing. It also clarifies the important semantic limits that a check never proves a coupon works and a failed check never marks a deal verified.

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 dense but front-loads the main purpose and then covers side effects, pending behavior, status meanings, and limitations. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the text could be slightly easier 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?

Given the existing output schema and annotations, the description supplies the remaining behavior an agent needs: background check queuing, rate limiting, retry behavior, status meanings, and verification caveats. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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?

The schema fully documents the sole deal_id parameter, including its pattern and source. The description adds a useful constraint by clarifying that the tool takes a deal id and never an address.

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 clearly states this returns the status of one stored deal, including lifecycle, latest check details, and freshness. It distinguishes itself from search-style tools by requiring a single deal id, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_deal.

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 explains what to do when the latest check is not fresh: the tool queues a background check and returns pending with retry_after_seconds, so the caller should call again later. It also explains not_checkable and unavailable outcomes. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_deal.

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 and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: unknown values are returned as null, a disclosure accompanies the record, and the agent is told to present links.purchase_url unchanged as the purchase action while crediting source_url.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded, but the middle is one long comma-chained field enumeration that largely restates the output schema. The actionable instructions about links and the disclosure are buried at the end instead of being surfaced.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it still communicates the two things the schema cannot: null semantics for unknown values and how to render the links. For a single-parameter read tool that is sufficient, though the sibling relationship to check_deal_status is never addressed.

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% and the schema itself supplies the format pattern and an example id, so the single parameter is fully documented before the description is read. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 full public record of one deal" gives a clear resource and scope, and the field enumeration makes the payload concrete. Singular retrieval contrasts implicitly with the list-oriented siblings (search_deals, get_latest_deals), but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 the required deal_id and by the schema note pointing to search_deals/get_latest_deals as the id source. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus check_deal_status, nor any prerequisite or failure guidance (e.g., what happens for an unknown or expired id).

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 this a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds substantial behavior on top: ended, expired, and unavailable deals are excluded by default, results are newest-first, and each record carries links.source_url (the page to credit) and links.purchase_url. The instruction to present purchase_url unchanged as the purchase action plus the disclosure requirement is exactly the kind of policy detail annotations cannot carry.

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 scope and ordering before filters and output policy. The final sentence is somewhat dense with nested parentheses, but every clause (credit URL, purchase URL handling, disclosure) is actionable rather than filler.

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 an output schema present, the return-value burden is lighter, yet the description still surfaces the link fields and disclosure obligation, which are usage-critical rather than structural. The remaining gap is pagination and the limit cap, which an agent must discover from the schema, but overall it is complete for a filtered recency-list tool.

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 33 percent; the description meaningfully fills in since (published or updated after a time), the retailer/category filters, and include_ended (which also pulls in expired and unavailable deals). It says nothing about limit (default 10, capped at 20) or cursor-based pagination, so those two parameters rely entirely on the schema.

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 the resource (deals), the ordering rule (published or updated most recently, newest first), and the optional narrowing dimensions (since, retailer, category). It is clearly a recency feed, which implicitly separates it from search_deals, but it never names the sibling tools, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 establishes when this feed is appropriate (browsing recent handpicked deals, filtered by retailer/category) and when ended items appear (include_ended is true), which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_deals, get_deal, or check_deal_status instead, leaving the agent to infer the routing from the tool name.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: only published posts are returned, ended/expired/unavailable deals are excluded, ranking never uses commission, and each result carries links.source_url and links.purchase_url with a mandatory presentation rule and disclosure. That is exactly the kind of policy and output-handling disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then filters, then ranking and link-presentation rules, with no filler sentences. The heavy parenthetical stacking makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure would, but 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?

With 12 parameters (none required) and an output schema present, the description covers discovery scope, filter semantics, sort semantics, ranking policy, the empty-result case, and the affiliate attribution obligation. The only real omission is pagination behavior across limit and cursor, which the schema documents only partially.

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 only 42%, so the description has to carry weight, and it does: it explains min_discount as requiring a discount backed by two stated prices, maps sort to relevance/newest/price/discount/recently-checked, and glosses availability as online vs in-store. It leaves brand, limit, min_price/max_price meaningful but only lightly characterized ("price range"), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search the live deals PostThisDeal's team has handpicked") and immediately bounds the corpus to published, non-expired, non-unavailable deals. The filter and sort vocabulary makes it obviously a discovery/list tool, distinct from the id-based siblings get_deal and check_deal_status, though it never names an alternative outright.

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 through the enumerated filter dimensions and the note that an empty result means nothing matched, which sets expectations. However, there is no explicit routing guidance such as when to use this instead of get_latest_deals, and no stated prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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