pp_get_top_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 one genuinely new behavioral fact — the min_savings default of 10%, which is absent from the schema — but says nothing about return format, ordering, or list size behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. The retailer-array sentence partially duplicates the schema text, slightly reducing density but not enough to hurt readability.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate: it defines scope, grouping, and the key default. It could say more about what a 'list' contains or how many lists are returned, but nothing essential to invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, retailer, and min_savings are already documented in the schema. The description adds the non-schema default value for min_savings and reinforces the array semantics, but the passing syntax it describes is already spelled out in the schema's retailer description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Top deals grouped per brand') and a clear scope modifier (optionally narrowed to retailers). It is distinguishable from pp_get_new_deals and pp_get_popular_deals by the brand grouping, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-named pp_get_brand_deals sibling.

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?

Gives actionable tuning guidance ('raise min_savings to cut the noise') and how to scope by retailer, which is usable context. However, it never states when to prefer this over the many sibling deal-listing tools (new_deals, popular_deals, deals_by_type), so alternative selection is left to inference.

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