search_offers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: price/commission are estimated observations and fixture mode contains only synthetic data. However, it does not explain what activates fixture mode or how estimates affect results, so the added transparency is meaningful but incomplete.

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 two short sentences and is front-loaded with the action, so it avoids bloat. However, for a nine-parameter search tool with very low schema coverage, this size is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and the structure does not help an agent understand invocation.

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 annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, so return values and read-only behavior need not be explained. But with nine parameters at 11% schema description coverage, the description should compensate with parameter and usage context; it instead omits both, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 11% (only sort_type has an enum description), so the description must compensate for eight undocumented parameters. It provides no meaning for keyword, page, limit, cursor, shop_id, category_id, is_ams_offer, or is_key_seller, leaving parameter semantics almost entirely 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 says 'Pesquisa uma página' (searches a page) but never identifies what is searched—offers—and does not distinguish the tool from sibling search tools like search_shop_offers or search_campaign_offers. The added caveats about price/commission estimates and fixture mode are side notes, not a clear statement of purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_shop_offers, search_campaign_offers, or get_offer. The fixture-mode note is a data condition, not a usage instruction, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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