cloo.be: ofertas da Shopee

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context about filtering and ordering, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or return 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to purpose, filters, or ordering.

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 parameter schema, annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the key behavior an agent needs to call the tool. It is only missing explicit sibling routing guidance and return-value context, which are secondary here.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description reinforces preco_maximo, desconto_minimo, and the sort options, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for termo or limite.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Busca ofertas'), names the platform (Shopee Brasil), and specifies filters and ordering. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ofertas_da_categoria, ofertas_em_alta, or search.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of maximum price, minimum discount, and ordering options, suggesting it is for filtered product searches. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

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 needs no restating. The description earns credit for disclosing the response payload (current price, previous price, discount, rating, sales, store, verification date, buy link), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the lookup key comes first, the returned fields follow as a compact enumeration. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies the missing return-value information, which is the main gap it needed to close. Minor omission: it doesn't say what happens when the id is unknown or the URL points to a removed offer.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's own parameter description already says 'Id da oferta (número) ou URL https://cloo.be/ofertas/…', which the description essentially repeats. It adds no extra format rules, normalization behavior, or error semantics for a malformed id/URL, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (fetch the details of an offer) with its two accepted keying modes (id or cloo.be URL) and enumerates exactly which attributes come back. It implicitly separates itself from the list-oriented siblings (buscar_ofertas, ofertas_da_categoria, ofertas_em_alta) by being a single-offer lookup, but never names them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you need an offer id or an offer URL, so this is the follow-up call after a search, not a discovery call. There is no explicit 'use buscar_ofertas if you only have a keyword' routing, so an agent must infer the alternative from the required `id`.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering semantics but says nothing about pagination, result freshness, or how openWorld lookups behave (latency, coverage of categories), which would be the value-add 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The three category examples in parentheses are partly redundant with the 27-value enum in the schema, which is the only mild inefficiency.

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 annotations covering safety, a fully enumerated parameter set, and no output schema to explain, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly. Only the absence of any alternative-routing guidance for the four sibling tools keeps it below the top mark.

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 coverage is 50%: limite and preco_maximo carry their own descriptions and categoria/ordem are enums with defaults. The description reinforces that preco_maximo is optional and glosses 'desconto' as biggest discount and 'vendidos' as best sellers, but adds no format or interaction details 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Melhores ofertas de uma categoria') plus the sort dimensions and the optional price cap, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It never names or contrasts with the siblings (buscar_ofertas, ofertas_em_alta, search, fetch), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'de uma categoria ... por maior desconto ou mais vendidos', which suggests browsing a category sorted by discount or popularity. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to an alternative such as buscar_ofertas for keyword searching.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data is sourced from Brazilian search trends, retail calendar dates, and visitor searches, and it is explicitly 'hoje' (today), clarifying freshness and provenance. It still omits any note on rate limits, result size, or timezone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope and data sources, followed by a usage hint. No filler, no repetition, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys provenance.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented single optional parameter, and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: what the data represents (trending topics and best offers), geographic and temporal scope, and a use case. It stops short of describing return structure or result limits, which would help given the absence of an output schema.

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%, with the single parameter por_tema already documented as 'Ofertas por tema' (1-10, default 5). The description's phrase 'melhores ofertas de cada um' hints at per-theme grouping but adds no operational detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: trending topics in Brazil today with the best offers for each. A specific verb is implicit ('returns/lists'), and the topical focus distinguishes it from generic offer search siblings, though the description never names those alternatives.

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?

Provides one usage scenario, 'Bom para "o que está em promoção hoje"', which implies when to reach for it. It does not say when to use buscar_ofertas or ofertas_da_categoria instead, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful observability context — it states the returned fields (id, título com preço, página) despite there being no output schema — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or empty-result 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?

Three short sentences: what it searches, what it returns, and what to do next. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It stops just short of being maximally tight because the return-field sentence could be merged, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety; the description supplies the missing return-value information that would otherwise be absent without an output schema. Only pagination/result-size expectations are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a search endpoint.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines "query" and its Portuguese-language requirement. The description contributes only thematic examples ("air fryer", "fone bluetooth") that illustrate the kind of product string expected, which is marginal added value.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Pesquisa") and resource ("ofertas da Shopee Brasil") scoped to product search, with concrete query examples. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling buscar_ofertas, which by name sounds like an equivalent search, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them.

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 explicitly routes a follow-up action ("Use fetch com o id para os detalhes"), which is genuine usage guidance. But it gives no criteria for when to use this tool versus buscar_ofertas, ofertas_da_categoria, or ofertas_em_alta, so the choice among search siblings remains implicit.

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