Pay: offers list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the safety profile ('Read-only') while adding real value: the exact fields returned (id, name, kind, primary code, rewards, status) and the scoping notion that these are project-level offers. No contradiction with the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact parenthetical that defines the domain, followed by two short clarifying sentences. 'List offers.' followed by 'Lists the project's offers' is mildly redundant, but the whole passage is tight and every other clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explicit enumeration of returned fields is exactly the information an agent would otherwise lack. Combined with the read-only note and sibling differentiation, nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The field enumeration it provides effectively compensates by describing what the (empty-input) call yields.

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 (list offers) and immediately defines the domain: discounts, trial extensions, and referral schemes redeemed with a code. It also names the neighbouring concept it is NOT (`pay_plans_list`), so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening a 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?

The description establishes clear read-only list context and explicitly separates offers from subscription plans, pointing at the sibling that covers the adjacent concept. It stops short of stating when to prefer `pay_offers_get` (single offer) over this bulk listing, so the routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

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