lax_get_offer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about what happens when the id is missing or invalid (error vs null), what the returned offer contains, or any permission 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?

A single short sentence with the key action and scope front-loaded, and no wasted words. It is arguably too sparse rather than too verbose, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

A simple one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage needs little, but with no output schema the description should at least say what an offer record contains or how misses are surfaced. As written, it leaves the return behavior entirely unstated.

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 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Offer id'. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one LAX offer by id'), which is unambiguous on its own. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling lax_get_job (offer vs job) or explain the relationship to lax_search_agents, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals this is a direct lookup when an offer id is already known. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to search/list alternatives for finding ids in the first place.

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