search_deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavior: max_price silently drops deals with unknown price, listed_discount values are unconfirmed (verified_at null), limit is bounded 1-25, and next_cursor must be passed back as cursor. These are non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Tight, front-loaded, and free of filler; the offer_type list is dense but carries necessary semantic distinctions. The line breaks make it scannable, though the taxonomy block could be trimmed of the parenthetical if the field were enumerated in the schema instead.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the pagination contract is given. But for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving mode/tags/query/category undefined is a meaningful completeness gap that the description should have closed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for offer_type (full value list with semantics), max_price, limit, and cursor. However mode, tags, query, and category — half the parameters, including the opaquely named mode with default "full" — are entirely undocumented in both schema and 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Search ... deals") with a scoping qualifier ("agent work-stack") and example categories (compute, search, email, unblock, hosting). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_deals, get_deal, or optimize_stack, so an agent must infer the boundary between lookup and comparison.

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?

Usage is only implied: the offer_type taxonomy and max_price caveat tell the agent how to filter, and the cursor sentence tells it how to page. There is no statement of when to prefer this over compare_deals or get_deal, and no prerequisite/exclusion guidance.

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