products_list_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Get all deals', 'Returns a list'), with no mention of side effects. The behavioral intent is transparent, though an explicit statement of no mutations would be ideal.

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 well-structured with bullet points and front-loads the main action. It is concise but includes slight redundancy (first two sentences convey similar info). Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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 no output schema, the description briefly explains what each deal includes ('full deal information plus product attachment details'). It covers filtering and use cases adequately. Could mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but is sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds context for the 'status' parameter by listing its enum values, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema for other parameters. Baseline 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's purpose: 'Get all deals where a specific product is attached.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deals'), and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'deals_list_products' which lists products on a deal (inverse).

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 provides clear use cases (tracking product usage, analyzing product performance, etc.) and mentions filter options. It implies when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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