Get Competing Offers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond stating the return details. It does not disclose potential issues like pagination limits, data latency, or how filtering parameters affect behavior. The description aligns with annotations but doesn't add significant 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 that conveys core purpose and output details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning pagination) without adding length.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning return fields (pricing, condition, seller information). However, it does not explain how parameters like bestOfferOnly and condition interact, nor does it describe pagination behavior. For a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings, more context would improve completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., ean, page, countryCode, condition). The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since schema descriptions are adequate. Baseline score 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 action (Get), resource (competing offers), and identifier (by EAN). It also lists the type of details returned (pricing, condition, seller information), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_offer which retrieves a single offer.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, the presence of many sibling tools (e.g., get_offer, get_catalog_product) could benefit from context on distinguishing use cases. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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