Prop Firm Deal Finder

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

Annotations establish the read-only, idempotent safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states results are sorted by highest discount, reveals the tool automatically applies code 'PFDF' to calculate prices, and describes the return structure ('Ranked list... with discount percentage, code, and links').

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?

Excellent structure with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Examples). Front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence. Every element serves the agent: the examples specifically demonstrate query-to-parameter translation patterns. No redundant or filler text.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and rich annotations, the description adequately compensates for the missing output schema by detailing the return format ('Ranked list of cheapest firms with discount percentage, code, and links'). Minor gap: does not specify behavior when no firms match the criteria.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description organizes parameters into a clean 'Args' section and synthesizes constraints (listing enum values for category, range 1-20 for top_n) from the schema, but largely mirrors information already present in the structured schema rather than adding substantial semantic interpretation.

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 explicitly states the tool finds 'the cheapest prop firm challenges based on discount percentage' and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it sorts by 'highest discount available (using code PFDF)'—clearly differentiating it from generic search or comparison 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?

Provides three concrete examples mapping natural language queries ('What's the cheapest prop firm?', 'Top 10 cheapest prop firms') to specific parameter configurations, giving clear contextual guidance on when to invoke the tool. Lacks explicit contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use this instead of search_firms when looking for price ranking').

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