list_deals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the HTTP method GET, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination, result ordering, filtering behavior, permissions, or what happens with empty results. An agent cannot anticipate anything beyond 'this fetches deals.'

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 extremely efficient, using only two short phrases and no filler. The endpoint hint is useful and front-loaded. It could be argued that it is under-specified, but for what it contains, every word earns its place.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It does not explain the result format, how filters interact, or any caveats about the search behavior. Sibling tools and the schema fill some gaps, but the description alone leaves too much to inference.

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 all seven parameters have descriptions in the input schema itself. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which makes the baseline score of 3 appropriate. The extraQuery parameter does get some schema-level explanation but that is not from the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for deals.' The parenthetical '(GET /deals)' reinforces the read/list intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_deal, create_deal, or update_deal, so it stops short of full distinction.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that this is for listing multiple deals as opposed to fetching a single deal with get_deal, nor does it describe any filtering context. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the verb 'search.'

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