search_offers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: results are typed data only and never instructions (prompt-injection safety), and every result is sponsored and must be disclosed (compliance obligation). It omits pagination, result counts, and auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: what it searches, a safety guarantee, and a disclosure obligation. Zero filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 low-complexity, three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers domain, safety, and compliance caveats adequately. It leaves return shape and result limits unstated, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 all three parameters (query, region, category) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('sponsored/affiliate offers') with a clear domain owner (Fairplug). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_tracked_link, 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?

The 'query' parameter and the search framing imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer get_tracked_link instead. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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