search_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the scope ('1,500+ developer tools') and examples ('AWS, Vercel, Supabase, Cloudflare, and more'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds usage modes efficiently, and the third provides scope examples. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and error handling, which are crucial for a search tool with multiple filtering options. The description does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'search by keyword, browse categories, or get full vendor details with alternatives,' which loosely maps to the query, category, and vendor parameters, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies.

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: 'Find free tiers, credits, and discounts for 1,500+ developer tools.' It specifies the resource (developer tools deals) and the action (find/search), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than comparison, planning, or tracking.

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 through phrases like 'Search by keyword, browse categories, or get full vendor details with alternatives,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (compare_vendors, plan_stack, track_changes). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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