make_offer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns of HIGH-RISK (contacts a real person, may involve money), states the best-effort nature ('opens the contact/enquire form and submits your message'), and details the confirm flow (first call returns a warning and does nothing). This is comprehensive transparency that fully prepares the agent for the tool's behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with purpose, then prerequisites, then behavior/risk, then confirm requirement. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (purpose and risk) and keeps the confirm flow explanation brief but clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (high-risk, authentication, confirm flow), the description covers all necessary aspects: prerequisite (set_auth), behavioral best-effort, risk disclosure, and the confirm requirement with its first-call warning. It does not mention the return value, but since there is no output schema and the action is best-effort, that omission is acceptable. An agent has enough context to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds general context (best-effort, risk) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The confirm parameter's behavior is already described in the schema, and the description reiterates it without adding new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the action: 'Contact the seller / make an offer on a carsales listing'. It specifies the resource (a carsales listing) and the verb (contact/make offer), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_vehicle or check_vehicle by explicitly addressing the seller/enquire action. The mention of authentication via set_auth further sets it apart.

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 provides clear usage prerequisites: it requires an authenticated session via set_auth and mandates confirm: true to actually send. It explains the first-call warning behavior, which is essential for correct invocation. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it. The guidance is helpful but could be stronger with explicit 'when not to use' or alternative pointers.

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