pp_get_deals_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is cheap, and it is intended as a freshness gate before reporting. It does not describe latency, rate limits, or the exact freshness semantics, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The return contents come first, then the operational use case, which is the right front-loading for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and it enumerates the four key aggregate fields. For a zero-parameter summary tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate about inputs. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description introduces no misleading parameter behavior.

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 gives a specific resource ('Aggregate stats') and enumerates exactly what is returned: total products, retailer count, biggest discount, last update. This sets it apart from listing tools like pp_get_top_deals or pp_get_deals_by_type. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces, so not quite 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?

It states a concrete situation for calling it: a 'cheap call to check that the data is fresh before reporting anything about this week.' That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a workflow. No exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. pp_health_check) are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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