search_offers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search operation and specifies the output fields, which aids the agent. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or has rate limits, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second lists the key outputs and the integration path to create_instance. All information is relevant and 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?

The description compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the primary returned fields, which is essential for an agent to use the result. It also connects the tool to create_instance, completing a workflow. Minor gaps include pagination or edge behavior (e.g., empty results), but these are secondary given the schema covers parameters.

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%, so all 8 parameters are already documented with types and descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond restating the resource type, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 ('rentable GPU machine offers on Vast.ai'), and distinguishes itself by listing the exact returned fields (id, gpu_name, num_gpus, etc.) and referencing create_instance as the next step. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_gpus or billing_summary.

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 that the returned offer id should be used with create_instance, indicating a clear workflow context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or direct users to an alternative like list_gpus for GPU type discovery, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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