M.Video product mappings

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read', which implies no modifications, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering capabilities, response format, or any other behavioral traits visible in the schema (limit, cursor, offer_id, product_id, is_archived). This is minimal 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 with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, although the extreme brevity might under-specify, the sentence itself earns its place and has no fluff.

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 description is extremely thin for a tool with 5 optional parameters and no annotations or output schema. It covers only the core purpose and misses pagination, filters, and intended use cases, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, and schema coverage is 0%. While the schema properties are self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the raw schema, and with a 0% coverage the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter context.

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 'Read' and the resource 'offer_id to product_id mappings', which is a specific and distinct purpose among the sibling tools that deal with stock, prices, orders, and shipments. It could be more explicit about the list/retrieval nature, but it is sufficiently clear to differentiate the tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preferred contexts, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling names alone.

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