ym_get_offers

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

The description adds the endpoint and return shape, which is useful, and the readOnlyHint is consistent with the read-only nature of listing offers. It does not document auth requirements, rate limits, or potential errors, but the annotations already cover the read-only aspect.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details and response shape. It avoids boilerplate while still covering the essential invocation details.

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?

The description includes the endpoint, all parameter meanings, and the return envelope, making it self-sufficient for a basic call. It lacks error semantics and pagination iteration hints, but for a read-only listing tool the provided context is strong.

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 parameter descriptions appear absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining every argument: business_id, offer_ids, page_token, and limit. It adds real meaning with types, defaults, and the pagination token semantics.

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 clearly states it lists the seller's offers with their Market card mapping, using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from order/stock tools by mentioning 'offerMappings', but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like ym_get_orders or ym_get_stocks.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ym_get_orders or ym_get_stocks. The endpoint and args are specified, but there is no decision-making context for the agent.

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