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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an unusually good job: it explains the get_code_url link on every row, the always-on standing_code, and that a deal's own code appears only when code_state is 'standing'. It explicitly warns against inventing codes or implying an always-on code applies to a campaign, which is high-value anti-hallucination context. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or rate/total limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but the body is dense and repetitive, restating the code_state rules and link-quoting instruction several times. Presentation coaching about user-facing wording ('say discount code, never standing code') is verbose and dilutes the operational guidance.

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 compensates well by naming and explaining the returned fields (get_code_url, standing_code, code_state) and their semantics. It is thorough for a listing tool, though it omits ordering guarantees, total counts, and pagination behavior.

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% (the single 'limit' param is fully documented with default and max), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about limit, default, or truncation behavior, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (prop firm deals) with a clear recency scope ('newest ... within the rolling 2-month window'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or contrast against the obvious sibling search_deals, so the boundary between browsing latest deals and searching deals must be inferred.

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 heavily prescribes how to present results, but never states when to call this tool versus search_deals or list_codes. There is no explicit selection condition or exclusion, leaving the agent to guess which sibling is appropriate.

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