Get Woolworths specials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description builds on them rather than repeating them: it discloses pagination ('Returns one page'), the wasPrice return field, and the open-world caveat in actionable form ('read coverage before claiming anything is the best or only special available'). It also surfaces the non-obvious location-dependence of prices and availability. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, roughly 60 words, every one earning its place: purpose first, then return shape, pagination caveat, and location dependency. The most important operational traps (coverage, location) are stated explicitly with no filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky behaviors: single-page results, the coverage field, per-location pricing, and the wasPrice field, while the schema handles the sort and page quirks. It slightly underspecifies what coverage actually contains (e.g., total specials count), but nothing critical is left to guesswork.

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%, so all four parameters (page, sort, department, includeOutOfStock) already carry descriptions, including a thorough note on the CUPAsc quirk. The description adds only the department-narrowing mention ('optionally narrowed to one department'), so it sits at the baseline 3 without needing to compensate.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List products currently on special') plus the optional narrowing condition (department). The scope — current specials rather than general product search — distinguishes it from siblings like search_products, browse_category, and get_product from the first clause.

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 clear context: use this when you need current specials, optionally per department, and it warns that results are location-scoped, advising get_location/set_location as prerequisites. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (search_products, browse_category) and stating when to prefer them, so it misses the top of the scale.

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