Special offers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations: no mention of pagination depth limits, the heavy payload cost, or what a 'row' contains. The 900 KB-per-row cost note lives only in the parameter schema, not here.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with zero filler and the resource name is front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of information: the one sentence could have carried a usage cue or payload warning at little length cost.

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?

With three optional paging parameters, no output schema and no required inputs, the description is complete enough to identify the target but not enough to call it confidently, since the nested rows-of-products return shape goes unexplained. An agent would need to guess how results are structured and what a single page yields.

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 sits at 67%: size and limit carry upstream descriptions, but page is undocumented. The description adds nothing about any parameter — not the page/size/limit interplay, not what a 'row' versus a 'product' means operationally — so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 names a specific resource (Torob's special-offers feed, "پیشنهاد ویژه") and states its contents: themed rows with discounted or promoted products. The retrieval verb is only implied by 'feed', and no sibling (tb_suggest, tb_deal_check, tb_cheapest) is named to distinguish it, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of the many overlapping siblings such as tb_suggest, tb_deal_check or tb_cheapest, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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