groupon_get_deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the compact vs full detail behavior and listing the fields included in the compact view. This goes beyond the annotation, providing useful expectations about response granularity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main parameter, the default vs compact behavior, and the compact field list. It leaves the exact shape of 'full detail' unspecified, but given the readOnlyHint and schema richness, it is adequately complete.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minor nuance (e.g., dealId accepts full URL, compact list of fields), but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool fetches a single Groupon deal using a permalink slug or full URL, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_deals. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'single Groupon deal' are unambiguous.

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?

It implies usage when you already have a deal slug/URL, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_deals for finding deals. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not or exclusions, so it falls short of a 4.

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