Get top deals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context about ranking by savings percentage/amount and optional retailer filtering. However, it does not mention output format, ordering direction, or other runtime behavior, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 15 words, directly starting with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information and is easy to parse.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and key parameters. The annotations cover safety. However, the ambiguous phrase 'repeatable retailer slugs' and absence of any indication about the output format or default sorting direction leave minor gaps in completeness, especially given the crowded sibling tool set.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping 'retailer slugs' to the `retailer` parameter and 'savings percentage and amount' to `min_savings`. However, it does not explain the `limit` parameter, and 'repeatable' is unclear. This is insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get top deals by savings percentage and amount' – a specific verb, resource, and ranking criterion. It distinguishes from sibling deal tools like get_popular_deals by focusing on savings. However, 'repeatable retailer slugs' is somewhat ambiguous and does not fully differentiate among the many deal-related siblings.

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 use when the agent needs top deals ranked by savings, optionally filtered by retailer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, especially given numerous sibling tools like get_popular_deals and get_deals_by_type. The lack of explicit exclusions makes the guidance only implied.

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