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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: returned deals are guaranteed to be currently valid and are sourced from the latest successful flyer fetch per store. This sets expectations about result freshness and coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core search action, then adds store coverage and freshness guarantees. Every sentence contributes practical information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

The description, combined with the exhaustive input schema and available readOnly annotations, supports correct invocation well. It lacks explicit guidance on result ordering or empty-query behavior, but the output schema and the stated valid-date guarantee cover most agent needs.

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 every parameter already has descriptions and examples. The tool description reinforces the query and store concepts but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Search current Canadian grocery flyer deals by item name or store.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recipe and search_meals, since they target recipes/meals rather than flyer deals.

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 communicates a clear usage context: use this for current Canadian grocery flyer deals, searchable by item, store, and postal code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the subject matter is clearly different from the siblings.

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