PJELLY Deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a 'plain-text summary', which gives some return-format context, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as content length, language, or what happens if a topic is unsupported.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: it specifies the output format ('plain-text summary'), the source ('PeanutButterJelly.io'), and the two possible topics ('crypto exchange or cold wallet').

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only tool with a complete schema and annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the return format and the domain, and no output schema exists to require additional return-value documentation.

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%: the single required parameter 'topic' has an enum and a description ('Which guide to summarize.'). The tool description adds light context by naming the two guide areas, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the baseline of 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 pair: it provides a plain-text summary of a specific guide page on PeanutButterJelly.io. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_deal and search_deals, which relate to deals, not buying guides.

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 tool's purpose makes its usage context fairly obvious: use it to retrieve a summary of either the crypto exchange guide or the cold wallet guide. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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?

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the annotations already cover the safety profile of the operation. The description adds that it returns the 'full record' for one offer, which is useful, but it does not elaborate on response shape or any other behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part—action, resource, uniqueness, and examples—earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema is offset by the explicit statement that the tool returns the 'full record.'

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, but the description adds concrete id examples ('coinbase-exchange, ledger-flex') that clarify the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'Offer id' phrasing. This extra context helps an agent pick a valid value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full record for one offer by id'), clearly distinguishing this from a search/list operation like search_deals. It also provides concrete id examples, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for looking up a single offer once an id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_buying_guide or search_deals. The schema's id description points to search_deals as a source, but the main description itself leaves the routing mostly implied.

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose—it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of deals), whether results are limited, or any pagination. With no output schema, this omission is a significant gap.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the results look like (e.g., a list of deals) and any limitations. It mentions neither the return format nor pagination. The presence of sibling tools (get_deal, get_buying_guide) is not referenced, leaving the agent to guess when to use this tool. The description is too minimal for full contextual 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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'category' fully documented including examples and enum values. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (search) and the specific resource (PeanutButterJelly.io's crypto exchange and hardware wallet offers) with a method (by keyword). It is distinct from siblings like get_deal (retrieves a specific deal) and get_buying_guide (returns a guide), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_deal should be used for a specific deal or that get_buying_guide is for guides, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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