Get Daily Digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses defaults ('Defaults to today and to the min_rating in your config') and the nature of results (listings and price drops with scores). It does not mention potential side effects, authentication, rate limits, or read-only guarantees, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable. The description adds value beyond the schema by mentioning config-based defaults.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences. It front-loads the core function (what it returns) and immediately follows with the main usage instruction. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, defaults, and usage context. An output schema exists, so return structure is handled elsewhere. The only missing element is explicit guidance on when this tool is NOT appropriate (e.g., for detailed per-listing history), but the core calling contract is well covered. This is nearly complete for a read-only digest 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 both parameters with defaults and ranges. The description adds the context that min_rating defaults to the configured value, which is not in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand the fallback behavior, so it earns a 4 above the baseline of 3.

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 what the tool returns: 'New listings and price drops from a given day, with their scores.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource (daily digest) and adds detail about content. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_watchlist or search_listings, but the phrase 'main entry point' implies a distinct role, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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?

The description gives a clear usage context: 'ask for it each morning' and identifies it as the 'main entry point.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., for specific searches or watchlist details). This is partial guidance, not explicit routing, so a 3 is appropriate.

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