Get Offer

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds value by disclosing the return shape in detail: prices in both account and seller currencies, star-count rating breakdown, add-ons with extra days, and image links. It does not mention auth requirements or failure behavior when an offer_id is stale or invalid, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and the input instruction sits at the end where an agent looks last for the action step. The return-field enumeration is long and partially restates the opening line, costing a little density but earning its place since there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so thoroughly across currency, delivery, rating distribution, add-ons and seller identity. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema as 'offer_id from search_offers, or the Offer's page URL.' The description repeats that guidance nearly verbatim, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('One Offer with its full description...') and immediately scopes it as a single-record fetch, which cleanly separates it from the sibling search_offers. The enumeration of what 'one Offer' contains makes the object concrete rather than abstract.

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?

'Pass an offer_id from search_offers or the Offer's URL' establishes the retrieval workflow and the valid input provenance. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but for a single-record getter the alternative (search_offers) is obvious from the naming and the description reinforces it.

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