Pay: offers get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the full set of returned attributes and clarifying that codes/redemptions live in sibling tools rather than this response. No pagination or error behavior is mentioned, but for a single-record read that is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the long field enumeration is dense but each item is informative rather than filler. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted sentences.

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 no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the right compensation, and the cross-references to pay_offers_codes/pay_offers_redemptions prevent misuse. A brief note on not-found behavior or id format would make it fully complete.

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% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'Offer id (guid). Find it with pay_offers_list.' The description restates the guid type but adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 and resource with scope ('Show one offer by id (guid)') and then enumerates the exact fields returned (kind, status, caps, validity dates, Stripe coupon id). An agent can distinguish it from pay_offers_list without opening either schema.

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?

Implies single-record retrieval by id and routes the agent elsewhere for related data ('its codes and redemptions come from pay_offers_codes and pay_offers_redemptions'), which is a useful when-not signal. It does not explicitly contrast against pay_offers_list in the description body, though the schema param description points there.

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