locker_shipment_offer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no info on whether the offer is live, cached, region-dependent, or what triggers eligibility. For an openWorldHint tool, the external-dependency behavior is undisclosed.

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?

It is short, but the leading curly-brace fragment is undecodable without reading the name and reads like an internal note rather than a front-loaded purpose statement. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least confirm that it returns an offer object and state its meaning. Instead it leaves the action, the domain concept, and the return semantics all implicit, which is insufficient even for a one-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'post_id' is documented ('Haraj post id.'). The description only repeats the requirement without adding format, valid-range, or sourcing detail — baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a literal return-shape stub ('{offerId, isEligible, price}') rather than stating a verb and resource. It never says what the tool actually does — retrieve or request a Locker shipping offer for a post. An agent must infer the action from the name alone, and no sibling is differentiated.

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 guidance is 'Required: post_id,' which restates the schema's required field. There is no indication of when to call this versus get_post_details or other post-related siblings, and no context about what a 'Locker shipping option' means in the domain.

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