get_deals_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It successfully communicates that this returns a 'summarized' view with 'essential fields only' and is 'optimized for token usage,' indicating the response payload is smaller than full deal objects. However, it omits other behavioral traits like safety (read-only implied by 'Get' but not stated), permissions required, or error conditions.

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?

Description is a single, dense sentence with no waste. The parenthetical '(optimized for token usage)' and em-dash clause add value without verbosity. Every word earns its place by conveying both purpose and behavioral optimization.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by characterizing the output ('summarized,' 'essential fields'). However, given zero annotations and no output schema, completeness suffers from missing behavioral guarantees (read-only status) and response structure details.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation (pagination, status enum, filters). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable when schema coverage is high, meeting the baseline.

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?

Clear verb ('Get'), resource ('deals'), and scope ('summarized'). The phrase 'optimized for token usage' and 'essential fields only' effectively distinguishes this from sibling get_deals (implied to be full detail), though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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?

Provides implied usage context via 'optimized for token usage,' suggesting when to choose this over alternatives (when token conservation matters). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use get_deals for full details').

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