sevennow_deals

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 does so thoroughly: the response is paginated, a store-wide availability summary is reported before paging, results can number several hundred, each item includes promotion id/description/price/run dates, and lat/lon are inert. These behavioral traits go well beyond a simple 'list items' statement and help the agent set expectations.

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 longer than the ideal two-sentence version, but every sentence earns its place: return payload details, scale expectations, availability summary, sibling differentiation, and follow-up endpoint. It is dense and front-loaded with the core function before details. Slightly long, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly compensates by detailing the response contents (promotion id, shopper-facing description, promotional price, run dates), pagination, store-wide summary, and scale. Combined with the complete input schema, sibling differentiation, and prerequisite sourcing of store_id, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 each parameter documented including defaults and the inert behavior of lat/lon. The description's parameter-related notes (store_id provenance and lat/lon inertness) mostly echo the schema, so the added value is minimal but not zero. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every discounted item in one 7NOW store.' It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is 'the store-wide offers listing' and contrasting with per-category browse endpoints that only surface promotions for items they return. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from related tools.

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 explains when to use this tool instead of alternatives: per-category browse endpoints only surface promotions for returned items, while this endpoint provides the store-wide offers listing without walking the entire catalog. It also tells the agent how to obtain store_id (GET /7now/stores) and how to follow up (pass promos[].id to GET /7now/promotion), giving complete usage context.

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