Find deals

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the filtering logic in detail: median basis is price per m2 for sale, ads under 20% of median, suspect/placeholder prices, bait/co-op titles, notice/parking titles are dropped, and "Asking prices only". This is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the exclusion rules, then guidance — no filler sentences. It is dense and telegraphic (Persian keyword lists, backtick references), but every clause carries operational information.

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 16-parameter discovery tool with nested `filters` and no output schema, it covers the essentials: median semantics, exclusion rules, and narrow-query guidance. It does not explain the shape of the returned "scored deals" (no output schema exists) or the apparent gap between `min_discount_pct` max of 60 and the stated 70% floor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what `min_discount_pct` is measured against (median, up to 70% below) and by advising that `query`/`filters` must be narrow for the median to be meaningful.

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?

Specific verb and resource: it finds ads priced below the median, explicitly "without a budget", which implicitly separates it from dv_best_for_budget and dv_cheapest. The scope (scored deals, bait/junk removed) is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with dv_search or dv_cheapest, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule: "Use a narrow query or filters: the median of a mixed category means nothing", plus a workflow pointer ("Next: dv_post, dv_appraise, dv_compare"). It states the condition that makes results meaningful but does not say when to pick this over the other deal-hunting siblings.

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