hotline_search_offers

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses critical behavior: returns product MODELS not individual listings, price is a range, location unavailable. It does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but for a search tool these are typically less critical. The note about price being minimum shop price adds transparency beyond the schema.

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 sentences, zero wordiness. The first sentence immediately states purpose and return format. The second adds the crucial behavioral note. The third provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description explains the return structure ({total, returned, offers}; each offer has id, title, price, currency, url), explains what price means (min shop price, UAH), and covers limitations (model-level, no location). It also references sibling tools. Pagination is covered by schema, but the description is self-sufficient for an agent to understand inputs, outputs, and context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that price represents minimum shop price in UAH, gives query examples like 'ssd 2.5 sata' or 'монітор 24', and clarifies that min/max price is 'applied to the min shop price'. This interpretation helps the agent understand parameter semantics beyond 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 uses specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Hotline.ua (Ukrainian price aggregator)', clearly stating it returns 'product models with their price range across shops'. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tool search_offers (OLX) by noting Hotline returns models, not individual listings.

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 gives explicit guidance: use for 'comparing prices/specs of a product model' and advises to also call search_offers (OLX) 'for used/individual listings (with location)'. This creates a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive.

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