Get special deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that it is a read-only lookup, not what happens when no special deal exists, not whether it requires special permissions. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but nothing beyond that is stated.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized on its face. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — the one clause it has is grammatically awkward and front-loads a restated tool name.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of what a 'special deal' or discount structure looks like, an agent cannot predict the return value or error behavior. For a lookup tool in a billing/subscription domain, this leaves significant gaps that the description should have filled.

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% and the single accountId parameter is documented as 'ALSO Cloud Account ID', so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning beyond naming accountId, which matches the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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 names the resource (special deal discounts) and the key scope (an accountId), so an agent can roughly infer it retrieves special-deal discount information for an account. But the phrasing 'GetSpecialDeal discounts' is awkward and near-tautological with the tool name, and it never says what form the 'discounts' take. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like set_special_deal or get_subscription.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no acknowledgment of the natural counterpart set_special_deal (write vs. read). The only signal is the implicit 'get' verb, which is insufficient guidance for an agent choosing among ~50 siblings.

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