List offers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the endpoint returns records unordered ('in the order the API returns them'), supports no filtering, and redacts contact details by default. It does not discuss rate limits or response size limits, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 with no filler; the resource description, the no-filter/pagination constraint, and the API path are each stated once. The first sentence is a long field enumeration, but every listed field earns its place given 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating fields and noting default redaction. Pagination, absence of filters, and the underlying endpoint are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: pagination is the only way to traverse since there are no filters, and 'names by default' signals that contact data is withheld unless include_contact_details is enabled, reinforcing that parameter's purpose beyond its schema text.

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?

Starts with a precise noun phrase ('Offers on the agency's properties') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this resource is. The explicit 'no filters' note distinguishes it from filtering siblings like search_properties, and the contrast with the single-record get_offer is implicit in the plural/list framing.

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?

States plainly that 'The endpoint has no filters' and instructs to 'page through with page/max_results', which tells the agent when this is the right call versus a filtered search. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit 'use X instead when filtering' rule, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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