Get deals summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the word 'aggregate,' which is more about purpose than behavior. No contradictions.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Get aggregate deal and retailer statistics.' No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description doesn't specify what 'deal and retailer statistics' includes (e.g., counts, averages, time periods). For an agent to know what response to expect, this is a gap. However, many sibling tools are similarly terse, and the annotations cover safety. It's minimally viable but not complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema fully documents the tool's inputs. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'aggregate deal and retailer statistics.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_top_deals by emphasizing aggregate statistics rather than individual deals. However, it doesn't specify what the statistics include, which slightly limits clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as get_filter_stats or get_ean_stats. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer use cases. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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