agdp_get_offering

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond that, only stating 'detailed information' without disclosing error behavior, return format, or any constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds marginal behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key identifier mechanism ('by ID'), making it concise and effective.

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-by-ID tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit mention of return content, but since no output schema is provided and the operation is straightforward, this is a minor gap. The cross-reference to agdp_get_offerings in the parameter description completes the contextual picture.

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%: the only parameter offeringId has a description 'Agent ID from agdp_get_offerings'. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond 'by ID', and the schema already explains the source and format. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic weight.

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 and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific agent offering by ID.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool agdp_get_offerings by emphasizing 'specific' and 'by ID', so the agent can differentiate the list tool from the detail tool.

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 itself doesn't mention alternatives, but the parameter schema explicitly says 'Agent ID from agdp_get_offerings', implying a workflow: first list offerings, then get details on one. This provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives.

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