Special offers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotation behavior: the result is organized into themed rows, each with a theme title and product cards, which tells the agent what the payload looks like. It doesn't mention pagination limits, but the schema already carries those.

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 lines: identity/native name first, use case second, follow-up tools third. No filler and the most distinguishing information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (rows with titles and product cards) and the chaining path. Combined with fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to call and consume this tool; only explicit pagination/volume guidance is absent from the prose.

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 all three parameters (page, size, limit) are documented with defaults, ranges and even the reason for small sizes. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 the specific resource (Torob's special-offers feed, native term 'پیشنهاد ویژه') and its shape: themed rows of discounted or promoted products. That is far more concrete than a generic 'get offers', and it implicitly separates it from tb_search/tb_deal_check, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use for "what is on sale"' gives a clear use context, and 'Follow with tb_product / tb_sellers' supplies an explicit next-step chain. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g., versus tb_deal_check or tb_cheapest).

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