Search a city’s On the Cheap articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context such as 'Returns slim summaries by default', 'Retired deals live in an expired category and are excluded by default', and the national hub's country-wide coverage. It does not mention pagination behavior or the 'tag' parameter, but this is partially covered by the schema. 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?

The description is a single focused paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then incrementally covers site selection, filters, per-site ID caveats, expired deals, and return format/alternative tool. Every sentence contributes operational knowledge without repetition or padding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, cross-tool ID dependencies, default behaviors) and lack of an output schema, the description covers most key aspects: site selection, filter options, per-site constraints, expired handling, and return type. It omits a clear explanation of the 'tag' parameter and the exact structure of slim summaries, but these are partially inferable from the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to resolve category/location IDs against the same site, clarifying the 'expired' category context for include_expired, and noting that the national hub is valid for the site parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the 'tag' parameter or pagination, leaving those details to the already descriptive schema.

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 searches and filters a specific city's On the Cheap articles, explicitly listing content types (deals, festivals, kids activities, local guides). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing otc_get_post for full-text retrieval and implicitly from otc_list_* tools by focusing on articles rather than metadata/events.

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 explicit usage context: requires the 'site' key, references otc_list_sites for valid sites, mentions the national hub scope, directs users to otc_list_categories/locations for ID resolution, warns that IDs are per-site, and points to otc_get_post for full text. It also explains the 'include_expired' parameter for retrieving expired deals, giving clear when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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