prom_search_offers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return structure (total, returned, offers with fields) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent. It also omits authentication requirements or rate limits. For a search tool, the behavioral implications are mostly clear, but explicit safety disclosure would improve 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 two sentences plus a usage tip—concise and front-loaded with the action and return structure. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description usefully lists the return fields (total, returned, offers with id, title, price, currency, url). It also covers marketplace context and sibling differentiation. With 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%—all parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only clarifying that price is in UAH (already stated in schema). The baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool searches Prom.ua (Ukrainian B2C marketplace) and returns matching products. It differentiates from the sibling 'search_offers' by specifying that Prom sells new products from shops, while the other is for used/individual listings. The verb 'Search' and resource 'Prom.ua' are clear and specific.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For used/individual listings use search_offers (OLX).' It also gives context that Prom sells new products and compares it to Hotline, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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