get_offer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does list returned fields, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what force_refresh does, or what errors or limitations may occur. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and then enumerates the returned data. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording.

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 are partly covered, but the description still omits force_refresh semantics, any relationship to search_offers, and behavioral requirements such as authentication. For a tool with no annotations, this is not enough for an agent to reliably select and invoke it.

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%, and the description only restates that the lot is looked up by URL. It says nothing about force_refresh, which is left to be inferred solely from its name and default value. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 a specific action and resource: retrieving a detailed offer card by URL, and lists the concrete fields returned (price, area, floor, metro, house type, year, description, photos, price history). It does not explicitly contrast it with search_offers, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool should be used when you already have a URL for a specific lot, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus search_offers and no prerequisites such as authentication. The usage context is present but implicit.

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