get_offer_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the tool provides multiple types of data (text, photos, seller info) and implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't specify return format limits (e.g., max photo URLs, pagination of characteristics), auth requirements, or whether the offer must be active/visible. Lacks full transparency.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and lists contents efficiently. It earns its place without extraneous words. Could be improved by slightly greater precision on what constitutes 'full details' but is very clear overall.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no nested objects, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned (text, photos, seller, etc.) and how to use the parameter. Without an output schema, it would benefit from mentioning return structure, but the context signals reduce that need.

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 already describes the offer_id parameter well, including format and example. The description adds value by confirming the id comes from search_offers results, but doesn't add semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool retrieves full details for a single OLX offer by ID, listing specific content (plain-text description, characteristics, photo URLs, seller, status, dates). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_offers, which returns multiple results rather than one item's complete details.

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 implies usage when you need comprehensive information for a particular offer, contrasting with search_offers which returns a list. It states the required input is an offer_id obtained from search_offers results, giving clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it.

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