Get popular deals

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral context of the seven-day time window and the 'most-clicked' ranking, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any other operational details. For a simple read-only tool with strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, concise sentence that fully explains the tool's function. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb and immediately specifies the resource and criteria.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool. It could be improved by explicitly stating that the return value is a list of products, but the name and description sufficiently imply this. There is no ambiguity about the purpose or input.

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 defines 'limit' with type, min, max, and default, but the description provides zero context for the parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it never mentions how 'limit' affects results. The parameter name and schema constraints offer some semantics, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('products'), and the specific criteria ('most-clicked', 'last seven days'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_top_deals' or 'get_deals_summary' by specifying a unique metric and time window.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving popular deals based on clicks in the last week, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_deals' or 'get_deals_by_type'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so the usage context is only implied.

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