Place Offer

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key consequence: this is a real transaction, and for Kickbase-listed players it executes an instant purchase if budget covers it, whereas manager listings create a pending offer. It omits failure/error behavior, whether offers can be withdrawn afterward, and any permission or budget-check details.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose and the high-stakes warning front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral branches. No filler, though the line break mid-sentence in the first paragraph is slightly awkward.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the consequential semantics well but leaves an agent unable to determine what league_id does or what the call returns on success (e.g., offer id, immediate purchase confirmation). Adequate minimum, with a real gap around optional-parameter behavior.

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 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters and does not: player_id is never mentioned, league_id is never mentioned (its null default and what null implies is left ambiguous), and price is only referenced obliquely via 'offering the listed price'. Only the price concept is hinted at.

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 (place an offer on a market player) and flags it as a REAL TRANSACTION, which distinguishes it from the read-only market siblings. It does not explicitly name the adjacent tools (accept_offer, decline_offer, withdraw_offer), so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 two-mode explanation (Kickbase-listed vs manager listing) gives useful context for what will happen, but it never says when to prefer this over list_player_for_sale/accept_offer or when not to use it (e.g., insufficient budget, already owned player). Usage is implied by the branching semantics rather than guided.

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