get_offers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral facts beyond those: the server ignores `page` and returns at most 16 offers per sort, different sorts yield overlapping but different subsets requiring dedupe, and the model group's rating can merge different products. These are non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent must know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by the critical limit, the workaround, and the rating caveat. Every sentence carries essential information, with no filler.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers all non-obvious operational details: the 16-offer cap, the page-ignoring server behavior, dedupe guidance, rating-merge caveat, and single-request nature. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call and interpret the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds functional meaning for `sort` by explaining that each sort returns a different first-16 subset, making repeated calls with different sorts an explicit expansion strategy. It also links `sku_id` and `model_id` to 'one product,' though this is modest extra value over the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'All sellers' offers of one product (the site's «Все N предложений»), as tiles.' It clearly scopes the tool to listing offers for a single product and distinguishes it from siblings such as search_products, get_product, and compare_products by the resource it returns.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate ('offers of one product') and provides a concrete usage workaround: 'call again with another sort to see more (dedupe by offer_id).' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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