slickdeals_deal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the extensive set of return fields (title, store, price, vote score, comment count, expired status, taxonomy, poster attribution, related deals, merchant link, description) and the 404 behavior for unknown or removed deals. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only detail fetch, the coverage is strong.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but it is verbose and redundant: 'Get one Slickdeals deal thread's full detail. Returns one Slickdeals deal thread's full detail:' repeats the same phrase. The long enumeration of return fields is justified given the lack of an output schema, but the redundancy and run-on structure prevent a higher score.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers input requirements, the relationship to the search endpoint, error behavior, and a thorough list of return fields. It does not explicitly mention output format or auth, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly 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%, but the description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema. It clarifies that url must be the exact value returned by GET /slickdeals/search, gives a concrete example of thread_id from a URL path (/f/{thread_id}-...), and states the crucial 'at least one is required' constraint that the schema's empty required array 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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Slickdeals deal thread's full detail.' It is distinct from search/list tools in its focus on a single deal thread, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like slickdeals_search or slickdeals_comments, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives concrete input guidance: 'Give either url (the exact value returned by GET /slickdeals/search) or thread_id... at least one is required.' This implies a workflow where a search result URL feeds this detail tool, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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