get_offer

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioural value beyond that: it states a fresh observation is returned and that stock, freight, and approved commission are explicitly NOT guaranteed — a useful caveat about result freshness and trustworthiness.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the caveat trailing it; no filler, no redundancy, and the key scoping information arrives first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the caveat about non-guarantees is valuable. What is missing is where this fits relative to the many sibling lookup tools (observe_offer, get_offer_history, search_offers), which is the main thing an agent still needs.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It names both parameters (item_id, shop_id) and frames them as offer lookup keys, but adds no format, source, or matching semantics beyond the numeric pattern already enforced in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reconsulta oferta') and names the two lookup keys (item_id, shop_id), so the agent knows exactly what is being fetched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbour siblings such as observe_offer or get_offer_history, leaving the agent to guess which lookup variant applies.

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 only additional clause ('não garante estoque, frete ou comissão aprovada') is a limitation notice, not guidance on when to call this instead of search_offers, observe_offer, or get_offer_history. No prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions are given.

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