find_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description merely restates the tool's purpose ('Hunt for active deals') and adds synonyms like 'promo codes' and 'discounts,' but it does not disclose whether results are filtered by activeness automatically, whether coupon validity is verified, or what the return structure looks like. This is a significant transparency gap beyond what the name and schema already convey.

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 concise sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every phrase contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core query intent but omits return-value details (e.g., does it return a list of deals with prices and coupon codes?), pagination/limit behavior, and regional defaults. Schema descriptions fill gaps on parameters, but the absence of output specification and usage context leaves the overall description only minimally complete for an agent to understand results and boundaries.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already contains. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, and there is no evidence of additional semantic value in the description.

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 uses a clear action verb ('Hunt') and specifies the resource: active deals, promo codes, and discounts for a product or category. This distinguishes find_deals from sibling tools like product_search (searching products) and find_best_price (comparing prices). However, 'Hunt' is slightly informal, and the description does not explicitly contrast it with these siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 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 implies the tool is for finding deals and discounts, and the query parameter is described as 'Product, brand, or category to find deals for.' There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like find_best_price or price_history, nor any exclusionary statements. This meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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