Flash deals

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: deals have limited stock and 'Check stock_left, it runs out,' telling the agent results are perishable and to re-inspect stock. It doesn't touch rate limits or auth, but that's a minor gap.

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 purpose, then routing and a stock caveat, in three tight sentences with no repetition of schema content. The stock line ('Check stock_left, it runs out') is slightly clipped in phrasing but 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description surfaces the key return field (stock_left) and the cross-tool workflow, which is what an agent needs for a geo-filtered list feed. Pagination mechanics are left to the schema, which covers them adequately.

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/page/sort/category/page_size are already fully documented, and the description adds only the implicit 'near a point' framing. The mention of stock_left refers to a return field, not an input parameter, so it doesn't deepen parameter semantics.

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 the Tap Time flash deals') plus the defining constraint ('discounted dishes with a limited stock, near a point'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from Snappfood's FoodParty, so an agent can identify the domain without opening the schema.

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 clear usage cue ('Use for today's best deals') and chains to siblings ('Then tf_menu / tf_vendor_info for the restaurant'), which is genuinely useful workflow guidance. It does not, however, contrast against the closest-sounding sibling tf_discounted_vendors, leaving a possible ambiguity over deals vs. discounted restaurants.

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