get_flash_deal_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents (deal terms, basket value vs. minimum, claimed vs. max free items, deal timing, human-readable status), the authentication requirement, and the diagnostic use case. This goes beyond a simple read-only hint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: description, return details, usage context, and defaults. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what will be returned, the scenario for using the tool, and the authentication prerequisite. It provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with type, default, and description. The description merely repeats the default deal ID (11732), adding no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's high coverage.

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 'Get[s] the status and eligibility details of a Mega Flash Deal,' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single deal's status and diagnosis rather than listing deals or adding to cart.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check why a flash deal item could not be added to cart,' providing a concrete scenario. It also notes the authentication requirement, though it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it.

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