StackTheDeal Deals

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds that the response includes liveness status — useful return-behavior context given no output schema exists. It stops short of describing behavior for an unknown/expired slug.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the clarifying parenthetical after; no filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the key, the input shape, and one salient returned attribute. Only failure behavior (nonexistent or dead-slug errors) is left unstated, a minor gap.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by defining slug concretely as the last segment of a stackthedeal.com/deals/<slug>/ URL. That extra identification help is genuinely additive for recognizing a valid slug.

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?

Specific verb+resource (get one deal) scoped to a single entity, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_deals and search_deals that operate on collections. The parenthetical explaining the slug's URL origin further pins down what a 'deal' is in this domain.

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 only implied: it fetches a single deal by slug, and the schema hints the slug comes from list_deals or search_deals. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_deals or what to do if only a name is known, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape — live counts, store coverage, hot flags, and data freshness — which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of stating refresh cadence or caching behavior, so not a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the scope ('StackTheDeal at a glance') and then lists the four reported facts with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description has to carry the return-value burden, and it does so clearly by naming the four data points an agent can expect. It could be slightly more complete by noting how current the 'last updated' figure is or whether the result is cached.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports — live deal count, store coverage, hot-flagged count, and last-updated timestamp — which is far more specific than the title alone. It implicitly separates itself from get_deal/list_deals/search_deals by being the aggregate site-level summary rather than a per-deal operation, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'at a glance' implies a quick-overview use case, so the intended usage is inferable, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_deals or search_deals, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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 openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results link only to StackTheDeal pages (retailer links require following the deal page), deals are verified on the retailer's own page before posting, and results are sorted newest first.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by provenance and the link caveat. Every clause (ordering, returned fields, link destination) contributes information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 enumerating the returned fields (price, regular price, discount percentage, store, deal link) and ordering. Read-only annotations cover safety, and all five params are documented in the schema; only filtering semantics (how store/category combine) are left implicit.

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% — limit, store, category, hot_only and min_discount_pct all carry inline descriptions with ranges and examples. The prose adds no parameter-level detail beyond the return-field list, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List live deals currently published on StackTheDeal'), plus scope qualifiers (live, verified on retailer's page) and ordering (newest first). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_deals, so the agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

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 only implied: 'list live deals' with newest-first ordering suggests a browsing/feed operation, and the link caveat orients the caller. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_deals-or-get_deal guidance and no stated prerequisites, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: verified site deals are ranked first, and partner-store offers are merged only when server-side live catalog feeds are enabled, with live prices and tracked links. It does not mention pagination or result caps, but the annotation baseline is already met.

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 action and the matching scope, followed by usage examples and result-composition detail. Every sentence carries information, though the closing tracking/live-price clause is the least essential and could be trimmed.

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 takes on the job of explaining what comes back, and it does so adequately (verified deals first, optional merged partner offers with live prices). Combined with rich annotations, an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly; only return-shape specifics like field names or result counts are absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by specifying that the query is matched against deal titles, summaries, store and category rather than just being free text. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its explicit description.

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+resource ('Search StackTheDeal's live deals by keyword(s)') and scopes exactly which fields the keyword matches against (titles, summaries, store, category). It does not name the sibling list_deals or explain how keyword search differs from a plain listing, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions ('find me a deal on a coffee maker', 'any LEGO deals?'), which clearly signals the intended context. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to list_deals/get_deal as the alternative for browsing or fetching a specific deal.

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