sonic_deals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the source page, the absence of a price field, that the page may be published with zero promotions, and the exact empty-result behavior (empty deals array with count 0 rather than an error). It is hard to imagine an agent being surprised by this tool's behavior.

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 moderately lengthy but every sentence adds value: the purpose, the source's field richness, the sitemap gap, the pricing caveat, and the empty case. It front-loads the core purpose before details. It could have been slightly tighter, but there is no redundant filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the key fields returned, the scope of data, and the empty-state behavior. It does not explicitly volunteer read-only/auth/pagination notes, but the list semantics and empty placeholder are sufficiently unambiguous for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Following the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds richness to the return shape, which is more than nothing.

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 Sonic Drive-In's current promotions'), then reinforces scope by contrasting the deals page with Sonic's sitemap and clarifying that deals are national marketing offers rather than per-store pricing. This clearly distinguishes the tool from obvious siblings like sonic_sitemap and other Sonic menu/price 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 states the exact use case (retrieve current promotions) and provides explicit when-not guidance: the page is not in Sonic's sitemap, so GET /sonic/sitemap will never surface it, and deals are not per-store pricing, so the tool should not be used for price information. This directs an agent away from the main likely alternatives.

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