Flash-sale deals

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context that the list changes daily and sells out quickly, plus what each card contains (final_price, discount_pct, units left). It does not discuss pagination limits or empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy between 'time left', 'left (units in stock)' and 'sells out quickly', but nothing wasteful overall.

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 zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (card fields), the volatility caveat, and sibling routing. Missing only pagination/empty-state details, which is a small gap.

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 both parameters (page, limit) are fully documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g., how to walk pages or handle the 24-per-page cap), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List today's flash-sale products') with scope qualifiers ('deep time-limited discounts', 'with the time left'). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting bm_product should be used for sizes.

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?

Provides an explicit use case ('what is on sale right now') and routes the agent to bm_product for size lookups. It lacks an explicit when-not/negative condition, but the trigger context is clear enough to select this over browsing tools.

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