get_big_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the heuristic nature ('likely notable'), the use of 'documented amount-mention signals', and the default/max limits. However, it does not mention ordering, time scoping, authentication requirements, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, though 'Retrieve' implies non-mutating.

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 sentence of about 22 words that front-loads the main purpose ('Retrieve likely notable Doctor of Credit deal articles') before adding methodology and constraints. It is concise, contains no fluff, and every segment 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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential what, how, and limits. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description lacks explicit usage guidance and details on result ordering or recency, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The only parameter, 'limit', has its default, maximum, and exclusiveMinimum fully defined in the input schema. The description merely repeats 'default limit: 10; maximum: 25' without adding semantic context such as 'number of articles to return' or any behavior tied to the limit. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds no new meaning beyond the 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 verb 'Retrieve' and the specific resource 'likely notable Doctor of Credit deal articles', adding the method 'using documented amount-mention signals'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_posts, search_posts, and get_post by focusing on notable deals with a special signal-based selection.

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 implies usage when notable deal articles are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no exclusionary guidance or reference to sibling tools such as search_posts, so the context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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