pp_get_brand_deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: brand matching is case-sensitive against source data and must not be normalised. It doesn't mention pagination or result-size behavior, but the casing warning is real added value.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with the core purpose stated first and the casing caveat second. Nearly every clause earns its place, though 'keep the brand as the user wrote it and do not normalise it' restates the same idea twice.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema but rich annotations, the description covers the purpose and the trickiest parameter caveat. It omits the unknown valid values for promotion_type (no enums in the schema) and any indication of result ordering or pagination, leaving moderate gaps.

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 67%: 'limit' and 'promotion_type' are described in the schema, but 'brand' is not. The description compensates for the undocumented 'brand' parameter with critical case-sensitivity semantics, which is more than the schema offers. However it says nothing about limit defaults or valid promotion_type values, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 and resource: 'Every current deal for one brand', with concrete examples (Coca-Cola, Ahold). It implicitly separates itself from pp_get_deals_by_type by scoping to a single brand, but never names or contrasts with its many siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — call it to retrieve deals for one brand — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings like pp_get_new_deals, pp_get_popular_deals or pp_get_top_deals. The casing instruction is a usage hint for the parameter rather than tool-selection guidance.

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