sevennow_offers

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: it returns 'every promotional campaign a store currently advertises' with campaign-level detail beyond the item-level deals, the 'full legal terms are available nowhere else', and most importantly both lat and lon are explicitly declared 'inert' with byte-identical responses regardless of value. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and meets it thoroughly.

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 dense but purposeful. Every sentence earns its place: it defines the output, contrasts with a sibling, notes the uniqueness of legal terms, and chains to related tools and parameter behaviors. It could be slightly tightened (e.g., the last sentence on lat/lon is also re-stated in the schema), but the density is warranted given the wiring complexity between this and related endpoints.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to select and call this tool: it explains what is returned, how it relates to other sevennow_* tools, where store_id comes from, that lat/lon are no-ops, and how to follow up on campaigns via promo_ids or target_id. With no output schema, it even previews the internal structure of the response (headline, body copy, legal terms, artwork, promo_ids, target_id). Nothing essential is missing.

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 significant value beyond the schema. It explains that lat and lon are accepted but inert and forwarded only for upstream fidelity, and it establishes the provenance and role of store_id (from GET /7now/stores, selecting the store). It also clarifies that promo_ids feed other endpoints while a category campaign carries target_id — semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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 identifies this as listing advertised promotional campaigns for a 7NOW store, names specific examples of offers, and explicitly contrasts this campaign-level view with the item-level GET /7now/deals endpoint. It distinguishes between campaign types (promo_ids vs target_id) and related endpoints, fully differentiating it from siblings like sevennow_deals, sevennow_promotion, sevennow_combo, and sevennow_category.

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 contrasts a sibling tool (GET /7now/deals) and explains when each is appropriate: "answers which items are discounted and why" versus "what is this store advertising, and on what terms." It also names the exact endpoints each campaign points to (GET /7now/promotion, GET /7now/combo, GET /7now/category) and states that store_id comes from GET /7now/stores, making routing between tools fully explicit.

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