Get brand deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the word 'current' indicating time-sensitivity, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or required auth. Given the annotations, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word adds meaning. It is appropriately concise for its scope.

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 and three parameters (one required), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'deal variants' means, how 'limit' affects results, or what values 'promotion_type' accepts. The agent is left with significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior and response format.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only hints at the 'brand' parameter via 'for a brand', but 'limit' and 'promotion_type' are completely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare type names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'deal variants for a brand', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_deals or get_deals_by_type. It clearly states what the tool does.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, even though there are many deal-related siblings like get_deals_summary and get_popular_deals. The context for selection is entirely absent.

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