search_offer_notices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful semantics about what the results represent (records derived from physical statistics rows with supply and no executed volume), and 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or authorization.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads. The qualifier is cryptic but not redundant, so it is appropriately sized if slightly opaque.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with four undocumented parameters, no usage context, and no annotations, an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly. The description is thin for a filtered search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: start_date, end_date, limit, and offset are never mentioned. The field names are largely self-explanatory (dates and standard pagination), which earns slight credit, but nothing adds meaning beyond the bare titles.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('offering notices'), and the qualifier about being derived from physical statistics rows with supply and no executed volume gives it a domain-specific scope that separates it from siblings like search_physical_trades. The purpose is legible, though the derivation phrase is jargon-heavy and does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling search tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'.

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