yougpu_list_offers

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

As a list operation, the description implies read-only behavior and discloses the expected response fields (offer_id, price/hour, region, images). It adds the 'in-stock' filter, which clarifies the scope. Given no annotations, this is adequate but could mention safety or side effects explicitly.

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?

Two concise sentences without filler. First sentence states the action and prerequisite; second lists the return fields efficiently.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and return fields. It doesn't mention pagination or auth, but these are not critical for a basic list; the reference to yougpu_list_gpus completes the workflow 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?

The schema already documents gpu_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description additionally references yougpu_list_gpus as the source, reinforcing the parameter's origin and adding practical usage context 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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'in-stock offers for a GPU model id', making it clear this tool fetches offers rather than GPU models. It also references yougpu_list_gpus as the source for the id, distinguishing it from sibling list tools.

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 implicitly guides usage by noting the id comes from yougpu_list_gpus, indicating a prerequisite call. It clarifies this tool is for offers, not for GPU models or instances, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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