Prop Firm Deal Finder

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly/idempotent), so description appropriately focuses on business logic: it discloses the universal 'PFDF' fallback code when firm_name is omitted, explains return contents ('discount code, estimated savings, and how to apply it'), and notes the '20+ partner firms' scope. 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?

Uses structured sections (Args, Returns, Examples) that front-load the action and trigger conditions. The Examples section is particularly high-value for agent reasoning. Slightly redundant between Args description and schema, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description thoroughly covers the omission behavior (universal code), return value semantics, and practical usage patterns. No output schema exists, but the Returns section adequately describes the payload structure.

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% with complete firm_name documentation. Description adds value through the Examples section showing natural language mappings ('FTMO discount code' → params), which helps the LLM route user queries correctly even though schema is self-sufficient.

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 'Get the discount code for a prop firm challenge or evaluation'—a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by targeting 'discount code,' 'promo code,' and 'coupon code' queries specifically, contrasting with comparison or search 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?

Explicitly states 'This is the tool to use when someone asks "what's the discount code for [firm]?" or "prop firm promo code"' with concrete examples mapping queries to parameters. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' language naming siblings, but the specificity of trigger phrases provides clear selection guidance.

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