search_campaign_offers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no note on pagination, result caps, rate limits, or what a campaign/offer result contains, even though openWorld implies external variability.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded; nothing padded. Its brevity is appropriate, though the content it does include is partly inaccurate.

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 values need not be described, but for a four-parameter search tool the description omits pagination behavior, result volume, and sort_type meaning while promising filter dimensions the schema cannot honor. An agent cannot call this confidently from the definition alone.

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% across four parameters (page, limit, keyword, sort_type), so the description must carry the load and does not. Worse, it advertises 'categoria/coleção' and 'período' filters that do not exist in the schema, while leaving sort_type's 1-2 range and the page/limit semantics unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Pesquisa campanhas e ofertas Shopee') and names the filter axes, which is enough to separate it from search_offers at a glance. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling tools, and the named filters (categoria/coleção, período) do not actually map to any schema parameter.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this tool over search_offers or search_shop_offers, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing from the nouns alone.

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