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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a read-only search over active deals and names two filtering dimensions, which is helpful, but it does not mention result shape, pagination, sort order, or whether expired deals are excluded beyond the word 'active.'

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 concise sentence places the core purpose first and appends the optional filters. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only search with 100% documented parameters, the description is adequate for invocation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe what a result contains or how results are ordered/paginated, so an agent must infer the response shape.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds only a light mapping of store_id and query to filter/search behavior, which is useful but not above the baseline.

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 a specific action and resource: find active coupon codes and deals. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools about stores and categories, but it never names an alternative or states what it is not, 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?

The description implies the main use case: retrieving active deals, optionally filtered by store_id or keyword. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to search_stores, get_store_details, or the cashback tools.

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