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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations – results are ordered by discount size – but says nothing about result limits (the schema's hard cap of 50), pagination, or what happens on an unknown category.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core scope and ordering are delivered immediately. Its brevity is also its weakness, but as a structure/concision measure it is efficient rather than rambling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be explained, and the tool is simple (2 optional params). Still, the description omits routing guidance versus similar siblings and gives no hint about the result cap or filtering behavior, leaving real gaps for an agent choosing among ten sibling tools.

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 only 50%: 'category' is documented as an optional SEO slug, but 'max_results' has no description and no default. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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 resource ('Proizvodi na akciji' – products on sale) plus a defining behavior (sorted by discount amount), which is far more than a restatement of 'get_deals'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling, search_products, which an agent might reasonably pick for the same intent.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With sibling tools like search, search_products, and fetch available, the agent gets no signal about why it should choose get_deals over a general product search.

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