affiliate_awin_list_offers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the experimental status, the observed HTTP 500 error, and that results are returned only when Awin responds 200. This provides useful behavioral context, though it omits pagination details and authentication requirements.

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 well-structured sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, providing usage guidance, and describing return behavior. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main filter capabilities and return behavior, and warns about instability. However, pagination behavior and the exact response structure are not specified, leaving some gaps for an agent fully invoking the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps the filter criteria (advertiser, region, membership, offer type, status, exclusivity, updated-since) to the schema parameters. However, it does not mention the pagination parameters page and pageSize, and enum values are left to the schema.

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 clearly states it retrieves Awin promotions and voucher offers visible to the publisher, using the specific verb 'retrieve'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like affiliate_awin_list_programmes by focusing on offers with filter dimensions such as membership, region, and status.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to find joined or not-joined offers by advertiser, region, membership, offer type, status, exclusivity, or updated-since date', giving a clear use case. It also warns 'once the endpoint is validated for the account', which is a prerequisite condition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but implies its specialized role.

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