Get a public offer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real context beyond them: no authentication token is needed and no payment amounts are exposed. That auth and content-boundary disclosure is exactly the kind of value annotations can't carry.

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 with no filler; the returned-field list does the heavy lifting and the two constraints come last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (creator activity, deliverables, platforms, audience, follower minimum, deadline, link), so the agent knows what to expect on return. For a single-param read tool this is complete.

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% and the single offerId parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The offer's id or numeric id'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or id-derivation guidance, so 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one public Vereel offer) and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names vereel_get_my_offer or vereel_search_offers; the 'public' qualifier implies a private counterpart but leaves the agent to infer the distinction.

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 implies the right context (fetching a single public offer by id, no token required), but gives no explicit when-to-use versus search_offers or get_my_offer, and no exclusions. With seven siblings, routing guidance is thin.

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