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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states deals are 'active' but does not disclose return format, pagination, sorting, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-style tool (get_deals) this is a gap; a simple note that it returns a list or that it is read-only would be expected.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second adds optional filters. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It lacks any statement about return values, result format, or behavior when no filters are applied. For an agent, this may be enough for a simple lookup, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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. The description adds slight value by explicitly saying 'filter by store ID or search by keyword', mapping to store_id and query, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for limit. Overall it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 the tool finds active coupon codes and deals, using the verb 'find'. It also mentions optional filtering by store ID or keyword, which distinguishes it from sibling store-search tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with alternatives, so slightly short of a 5.

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 implies usage for finding deals, optionally filtered by store_id or query. It gives context for when to use the parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or direct comparisons.

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