Prop Firm Deal Finder

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

Annotations declare the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: it specifies the return format ('Markdown-formatted list') and content ('full details and discount codes'), and clarifies the search scope includes 'slugs' and 'highlight features'.

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 section headers (Args, Returns, Examples). Information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. No redundancy—every line adds specific value regarding parameters, return format, or usage patterns.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by explicitly describing the markdown return format and included fields (discount codes), and annotations adequately cover the safety profile.

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 coverage, the baseline is 3. The description elevates this by providing concrete examples showing how to map natural user intents ('Futures prop firms') to the query parameter value ('futures'), adding interpretive guidance beyond the schema's technical description.

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 clearly states the verb ('Search'), resource ('proprietary trading firms'), and searchable dimensions ('name, category, asset class, or feature'). It effectively implies this is a discovery tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like `pfdf_get_firm_details` or `pfdf_compare_firms`.

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?

While it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' statements, the three natural language examples ('Tell me about FTMO', 'Prop firms that support crypto') provide clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool versus more specific retrieval or comparison tools.

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