offers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a valuable usage nuance: the claim_url is meant for the human to open, not the agent. It does not mention error behavior or confirmed read-only semantics, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('full detail for a single offer') and adds the key extra detail (claim_url) without wasting 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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the important claim_url detail. The schema's reference to search_offers supplies the needed cross-tool context, but the description itself could have explicitly stated that search_offers should be used first to obtain the id.

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 input schema has full coverage for the single id parameter with a description explaining it is 'the offer id, as returned by search_offers.' The tool description only reiterates 'by its id' and adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns 'full detail for a single offer by its id,' which identifies both the action and the resource. It also emphasizes 'full detail' and 'single offer,' helping distinguish it from search_offers and list_providers, though it does not explicitly name those 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 this tool is for fetching a single offer's complete data, and the schema's id parameter description ('as returned by search_offers') provides a practical workflow hint. However, the description itself does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is an exhaustive catalogue ('Every provider') and that each entry includes a signup_url, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential response size, ordering, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple read-only list but not richly transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the return contents and when to use it. It lacks details like whether provider IDs are included or whether pagination exists, but those are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, there is nothing for the description to explain; the baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear object ('every provider in the catalogue') and adds the returned field 'signup_url'. It also distinguishes itself from plan-focused tools by stating this is for brand-level questions 'rather than a specific plan.'

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the question is about a brand rather than a specific plan.' This provides clear context and an exclusion, though it does not directly name the sibling tools as alternatives in the description.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It adds two valuable traits beyond a plain search: prices are rescraped daily (so at most a day old) and the returned `claim_url` is intended for a HUMAN to open in their browser — a clear boundary preventing the agent from trying to follow that URL itself. A fuller disclosure might mention pagination or sort order, but the key behavioral risks are covered.

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 consists of three short, information-dense sentences: purpose and scope in sentence one, data freshness in sentence two, and the human-action requirement in sentence three. There is no fluff; each sentence earns its place and the main verb is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description should convey what the tool returns. It does state that each offer comes with a `claim_url` for the human to open, which is the most operationally critical part of the response. It does not fully describe the remaining fields of an offer or how results are ordered, so an agent must infer some return details, but this is not a blocker for correct invocation.

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?

All seven parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, including an enum for `offer_type` and a default for `limit`. The tool description only restates the general filter categories (`RAM, vCPU, price, country and type`) without adding any per-parameter nuances. With schema coverage at 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (`Search`) and resource (`live hosting offers across ~75 providers`) and enumerates the filter dimensions (`RAM, vCPU, price, country and type`). It also mentions the `claim_url` return, which helps an agent understand the tool's purpose at a glance and clearly distinguishes it from the single-offer `get_offer` and the provider-listing `list_providers` 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 the tool is for searching and filtering offers, which is a different use case from retrieving one offer (`get_offer`) or listing providers (`list_providers`). However, it never explicitly says 'use this instead of X when you need Y' or gives any exclusion criteria, leaving the routing decision to inference from the sibling names rather than stated guidance.

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