Request Offer Export

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

Annotations indicate that the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by explaining the asynchronous nature (returns a process status) and the subsequent steps needed. No contradictions found.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide the workflow. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns (process status), and the subsequent steps to retrieve the export. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% coverage with one optional parameter (format) and an enum. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 tool's purpose: 'Request an offer export file containing all offers.' It specifies the action (request), the resource (offer export file), and the scope (all offers), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_offer_export'.

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 a clear workflow: requesting the export, then using 'get_process_status' to get the report ID, and finally 'get_offer_export' to retrieve the file. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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