deal_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the MULTI_ITEM/canonical_deal_url constraint and pagination behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read operation, what happens if the deal isn't MULTI_ITEM (error vs empty result), or response format details. It's adequate but not rich on behavioral context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a scoping constraint. No wasted words. Slightly more verbose than ideal due to the URL format explanation, but that information is necessary for correct usage. Well-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?

For a paginated list tool with 100% schema coverage and all parameters documented, the description covers the essential constraints (MULTI_ITEM only, URL format, pagination). It doesn't describe return value structure, but no output schema exists and the tool's behavior is fairly predictable — fetching product fields for a deal. The main gap is lack of error/edge-case handling disclosure, but for this scope it's reasonably 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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters (page, fields, country, deal_id, sort_by, language) with descriptions and enum values. The tool description adds the page parameter's pagination semantics and the deal_id's role, but most parameter meaning comes from the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the products of a specific deal by Deal ID' — specific verb (get), specific resource (products of a deal), and a clear identifier (Deal ID). It distinguishes from siblings like deals, product_details, and product_search by targeting deal-scoped products. It also adds a valuable scoping note about MULTI_ITEM deals and URL format.

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 explicitly states 'For now, only works for MULTI_ITEM deals with no canonical_deal_url' and explains the exact URL format condition. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, distinguishing this from the broader deals tool. It also mentions pagination support, adding temporal usage context.

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