Heartly Deals — Live Flash Sales (Shopify & WooCommerce)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states the tool looks up an 'active deal', but does not disclose behavior for missing IDs (e.g., returns null/error), permissions required, or any side effects. For a read operation, basic transparency is missing.

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 of 13 words with no redundancy. It front-loads the key information without any extra fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., full deal object, fields included). For a simple lookup tool, missing return information reduces completeness.

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% with the 'id' parameter description already stating it is a UUID. The description repeats 'Heartly internal id (UUID)' and adds 'active deal', but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'look up', the resource 'single active deal', and the identifier 'Heartly internal id (UUID)'. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings 'list_active_deals' and 'search_deals_by_category' by specifying the lookup method.

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 usage when a specific UUID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use search_deals_by_category if you have a category name'). Guidance is minimal.

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?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses sort order and filter combinability but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or behavior for no results. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states what and from where, second adds sort and filter info. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at return structure. It says 'returns deals' but not the format. Missing pagination details. Adequate for simple list tool but could be more complete.

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 baseline 3. Description adds value by stating filters are optional and combinable, beyond individual param docs.

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 it lists active flash-sale deals from verified Heartly merchants, sorted by ending soonest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools get_deal_by_id and search_deals_by_category.

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 says filters are optional and combinable, indicating when to use it for listing active deals with optional filtering. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but siblings provide context.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Search active deals' without disclosing behavior like rate limits, result ordering, pagination, or what 'active' means. Minimal transparency.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action and required filter. Clearly structured.

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?

Schema is rich, but description lacks context on return behavior, pagination, or what 'active' implies. No output schema exists, so description should cover more. Adequate but not thorough.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. Description adds minimal value beyond stating category is required and others optional, which is already in schema. Baseline 3 holds.

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?

Clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'active deals' with filter by category. Distinguishes from siblings: get_deal_by_id is single deal, list_active_deals is unfiltered.

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?

States required argument and optional filters, but does not explicitly describe when to use this tool vs alternatives. Could mention that list_active_deals is for unfiltered listing.

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