MasaDeals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the finite set of possible statuses including 'unknown_code', that success stats are returned, and the conditional behavior when a cart is supplied. It stops short of covering failure modes for an unrecognized merchant or any rate-limit/coverage caveats.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return surface, with the conditional cart behavior placed last where it belongs. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 usefully enumerates the return surface (status, constraints, stats, cart verdict), which is the main completeness gap it needed to close for a 3-parameter tool with a nested cart object. Minor gaps remain around behavior for an unknown merchant or partial cart data (e.g., cart without geo or currency).

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic effect of the optional cart parameter — supplying it changes the answer to include whether the code would apply to that cart. That is meaning beyond the schema's own 'optional cart context' phrasing.

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 ('Check one specific code') and enumerates exactly what comes back: status with its enum values, structured constraints, success stats, and cart applicability. The 'one specific code' scope implicitly and clearly separates it from the sibling find_codes (a search) and report_outcome (a write-back).

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the single-code lookup to run when a shopper presents a code, and that supplying a cart triggers an applicability answer. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus find_codes, nor does it state prerequisites such as merchant slug format requirements beyond the schema.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious operational context: live guest-cart coverage, the 'no_verified_code' verdict, Fanatics' all-failed status, and the instruction to treat that verdict as a certified stop signal.

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-loads the purpose, then gives coverage, stop-signal behavior, and fallback guidance in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries operational value; the merchant list is necessary for correct tool selection.

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?

Covers the critical selection and invocation context, including supported merchants and the key 'no_verified_code' verdict. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the full return shape beyond that verdict, leaving a minor completeness 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 description coverage is 100%, and all cart fields are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces cart-based matching but does not add syntax, format, or field-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find promo codes') plus the ranking criterion ('verified checkout success only') and cart-fit scope. An agent can immediately tell this is not a generic code lookup or a write action.

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?

Explicitly enumerates covered merchants and says to call it for those, while directing unsupported merchants to web search instead of calling this tool. It also gives a clear stop condition when 'no_verified_code' is returned, which prevents wasteful brute-forcing.

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 a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower. The description adds context annotations cannot convey: this data feeds code verification and is a hard requirement for free-tier callers, which materially affects whether an agent must call it.

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?

Two short sentences: the action first, then the consequence and obligation. Nothing is padded or 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 four-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and obligation adequately. Minor gaps remain around what happens on a repeat report and whether any response is returned, though the idempotent hint partially covers the former.

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% and the enum values and the 'report when applied is false' rule are already spelled out in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as format, slug conventions, or handling of duplicate reports.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — reporting the outcome of a code attempt at checkout — which is plainly distinct from lookups like check_code or find_codes. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It states a clear triggering condition (after a code is tried at checkout) and adds a mandatory policy for free-tier callers. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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