get_offers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'View' indicates a read-only operation, but no additional context is given such as auth requirements, pagination behavior, or side effects. The description is minimal and does not fully carry the burden of transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the key elements (view offers, received/sent, on Poshmark listings) are all included in a well-structured format.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks usage context such as when to review offers before accepting or how to interpret results. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but does not provide the full context needed for an agent to decide between this tool and accept_offer effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (type and limit) thoroughly. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'View' with the resource 'offers' and clarifies direction ('received or sent'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like accept_offer which modifies offers. It accurately describes the tool's function in a concise manner.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the appropriate tool for reviewing offers before accepting, nor does it exclude use cases. The context is implied but not elaborated.

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