ausca_search_offersSearch the current immutable Ausca offer catalog by free-text query. Returns stable offer identities and revision digests without creating product or payment state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offers | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the catalog is immutable, no product or payment state is created, and results are stable identities plus revision digests. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentences with no filler; the primary action, target resource, and key behavioral guarantee are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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 rich annotations, the output schema, and the straightforward search operation, the description covers the essential behavioral context. It does not fully document all parameter semantics, but the presence of an output schema and the concise side-effect-free guarantee make the tool adequately callable.
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% and the description does not explain q, limit, or cursor. The phrase 'free-text query' implies the meaning of q, but limit and cursor receive no semantic guidance beyond the schema's raw constraints; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Search') and resource ('current immutable Ausca offer catalog') and specifies the return value ('stable offer identities and revision digests'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like ausca_get_offer. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it is distinct.
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 clear context for using this as a read-only catalog search, and phrases like 'without creating product or payment state' imply when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer ausca_get_offer or ausca_prepare_invocation, so routing guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: inbox list/read/delete/attachment/status, browser connect/close/status, invocation get/cancel/prepare, and offer search/get. Although messages vs read and status could appear similar, the descriptions clearly separate bulk summaries, single-message reads, and lease state. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
All names share the uniform ausca_ lowercase snake_case prefix and are grouped by functional area, making the overall pattern easy to predict. However, the final segment alternates between verb actions (delete, read, connect, cancel, prepare) and noun resources (attachment, messages, status), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention. This is a minor inconsistency rather than chaotic naming.
Thirteen tools cover three distinct functional areas, each with a focused set of operations and no obvious redundancy. This sits comfortably in the ideal 3–15 range and every tool appears necessary for the server's purpose.
The inbox lifecycle is well covered with list/read/attachment/status/delete, and invocation/offer areas support the key operations of search, resolve, prepare, get, and cancel. Creating a browser session or actually submitting an invocation appears intentionally externalized to the transport or offer terms, so there are only minor gaps rather than dead ends.