popeyes_offers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: returns a page, is paginated, includes expired offers, interprets price semantics (0 means discount not flat price, missing price does not mean free), clarifies requires_authentication reflects published rules not account state. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long but dense with valuable information, not repetitive. It front-loads the core purpose and then covers important caveats. Each sentence adds new information, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the data is, what it is not, how to interpret ambiguous fields (price, authentication), and the caveat about live status. An agent would have enough information to call it correctly and interpret results properly.

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%, and each parameter (limit, market, offset) is described in the schema. The description adds context about pagination (catalog spans hundreds, so offset/limit are relevant) and market options (US/CA), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions. However, it doesn't add per-parameter specifics beyond what's in the schema.

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 and resource ('List Popeyes' promotional deals and coupons') and elaborates on the content type (named value deals, percentage-off combos, paper coupons). It explicitly distinguishes this from personalized/store-specific lists and account/loyalty state, differentiating it from sibling tools like popeyes_promotions and popeyes_rewards.

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 clarifies that this is CMS content, not personalized or store-specific, and notes that it's the same kind of public data as /popeyes/menu. It warns that there is no 'currently active' flag, so it's reference data, not a live guarantee. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or give conditions for when to use this vs. others, leaving some inference to the agent.

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