marketplace_backoffice_list_offers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation fact — that this is an internal API disabled by default — but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or what 'disabled' means operationally for the caller.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries little burden. The 'internal API, disabled by default' caveat is the key thing an agent needs to know, though a note on expected behavior when disabled would round it out.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 (List) and a scoped resource (internal Marketplace special offers), which distinguishes it from the many get/list siblings by narrowing to internal backoffice offers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings such as marketplace_list_applications, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to identify it.

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 only usage signal is 'Internal API; disabled by default,' which is an availability caveat rather than guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing, and no mention of what to do if the API is disabled.

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