Grocery party deals

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds two useful operational constraints not in the annotations: capacity_per_order limits deal items per order, and segment 'new_user' deals are restricted to new customers. It does not mention return shape or pagination, but an output schema exists. Credit for the extra constraints, no more.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence carries purpose and ordering; the next two carry usage and constraint. It could be slightly tighter, but every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a full schema and output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, usage cue, and key purchase constraints. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation from food_party_deals, but otherwise contains what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 lat, long, and limit are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (list) and resource (SnappMarket 'market party' flash deals), and notes the sort order (biggest discount first). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling food_party_deals, but the 'grocery' / 'SnappMarket' framing and 'market party' label give enough specificity that an agent can identify the correct vertical.

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?

It gives a when-to-use cue ('when the user wants the best grocery discounts right now') but no when-not-to-use and no named alternative. With food_party_deals present as a direct sibling, an agent would benefit from knowing which vertical to pick, and that routing is left implicit.

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