ht_list_specials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the returned fields (sale price, regular price, purchase limit, end date), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits that results are account/session-scoped and says nothing about ordering or volume, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers purpose and returned fields with no filler. The branding and quotation marks around "My Specials" are slightly decorative but not wasteful.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying safety and openness, the description plus schema is close to sufficient; naming the returned fields compensates for the missing output schema. The gap is that nothing says the response is scoped to the authenticated user's card, which an agent might otherwise assume is a public sale list.

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% and the single `view` enum already documents compact/full/raw semantics in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the projection modes or default behavior, which is the expected baseline of 3 under high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource (Harris Teeter "My Specials"), and disambiguates it from generic sale listings by saying the items are "picked for your card." It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest siblings (ht_list_coupons, ht_get_weekly_ad), so it falls short of 5.

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?

Use is implied by the phrase "personalised ... My Specials ... picked for your card" — an agent can infer this is for card-linked personalized offers rather than store-wide weekly ads or clipped coupons. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many siblings, so guidance is left to inference.

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