mojomo_offers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the authentication requirement (MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY) and a hard frequency cap ('shown to you at most a few times, ever'), which materially affects when an agent should call it. It stops short of stating read-only semantics explicitly or how matching against the declared profile affects results.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each carry a distinct behavioral payload (the framer's intent, the frequency cap, the key requirement). The middle framing sentences are slightly rhetorical but arguably earn their place by shaping how the agent presents offers.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must imply the return shape; it describes what an offer conceptually is but not what fields come back (id, sponsor, terms) or how to act on one afterwards. Auth and rate-limit behavior are covered, leaving a moderate gap for a tool whose output feeds a follow-up flow.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description is fully covered ('Max offers (default 5, max 20)'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the limit or pagination behavior, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is 100%.

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 first clause names the resource and the scope precisely ('Offers you are eligible for right now, matched on what you declared about yourself'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like mojomo_redeem_offer or mojomo_campaigns. The verb is only implied (retrieve/list), but the resource and filter are unambiguous.

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 what to do with the results (judge whether an offer is worth the human's attention, state what you could not verify), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, it never says when to call this versus mojomo_redeem_offer, mojomo_campaigns, or mojomo_my_profile, and gives no exclusions or preconditions beyond the key requirement.

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