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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: 'currently visible' implies deals may change or be filtered, and 'ranked by discount and public availability' explains ordering. However, it does not mention any limitations, rate limits, authentication, or what happens when no deals are found.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behavior. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description gives the essence but lacks explanation of the return format and parameter semantics. It is minimally viable but leaves some context gaps, particularly for an agent expecting detailed invocation guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but does not mention 'limit' or 'category' at all. The schema provides types, defaults, and an enum, but the semantic meaning of 'category' (e.g., futures vs crypto) is not explained anywhere. The agent must infer parameter meaning from param names alone, which is insufficient for full clarity.

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's function: 'Get currently visible PropScorer promo codes and deals' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds unique qualifiers ('ranked by discount and public availability') and distinguishes from all sibling tools, which focus on firm comparison and rules rather than 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, from the sibling tool names, it is clear that this is the only tool for deals/promo codes, so usage is implied. There is no misleading guidance, but also no explicit context.

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