pp_get_new_deals

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. The description adds the 30-row cap, a useful behavioral constraint, but it duplicates the schema's maximum:30 and says nothing about ordering, freshness window, or pagination.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the key qualifier. It earns its place but is arguably too terse for a tool with 19 siblings, leaving ordering and semantics underspecified.

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 simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return record shape or the ordering key ('recently started' by what metric), which would help an agent use the results correctly.

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% for the single limit parameter, so the schema fully documents it, including the default of 10 and the max of 30. The description adds nothing beyond what structured fields already provide, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (offers/deals) with a temporal qualifier, 'most recently started,' which gives some sense of the ordering. However it uses 'offers' while the tool and siblings use 'deals,' and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like pp_get_top_deals or pp_get_popular_deals. An agent would have to guess which 'get deals' variant to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling deal tools (by_type, popular, summary, top, brand). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing. The agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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