Search prop-firm offers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by stating the default live-only filter, explaining that challengeId includes firm-wide offers, and enumerating what each returned offer contains. It could go further by mentioning pagination or sort defaults, but the core behaviors an agent needs are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, key filtering behavior is explained, and the output contents are summarized compactly. 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?

Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies a strong high-level model: what offers are, the default scope, how two key filters work, and what fields appear in results. The schema already documents individual parameters, so the description doesn't need to restate them. Minor gaps like pagination defaults and sorting behavior are left to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond field names by clarifying that propfirmId narrows to one firm and that challengeId resolves offers applying to a challenge, including firm-wide offers. This helps agents combine filters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search promotional offers (discounts and promo codes) across prop firms.' This clearly identifies the tool's domain and differentiates it from sibling tools like propfirms_search_challenges, which target challenges rather than offers.

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 explains default behavior ('defaults to live offers only') and how to narrow results using propfirmId and challengeId, but it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when to choose this tool over propfirms_search or propfirms_search_challenges. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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