Supply offers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the implicit date window defaults and 45-day cap, that dates are offer dates rather than trade dates, the field set returned per offer, offset-based paging, and the premium/export market variants including that export is priced in dollars. That is substantive disclosure for a read tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by usage, then returned fields, then filtering/paging, then the sibling pointer. The field enumeration is dense but justified because there is no output schema, and the cross-reference to ime_trades replaces several sentences of filter documentation.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the date-window behavior, paging, market variants, and the relationship to ime_trades. For a 10-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a point by adding meaning to the market enum (premium contracts expose `premium_price`, export is the Kish export hall priced in $) and by clarifying that date_from/date_to refer to offer dates. It does not resolve the odd schema wording on `producer` (described as a category id), deferring instead to "Filters as in ime_trades," which leaves that one filter ambiguous.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("List supply offers") plus the domain meaning (اطلاعیه عرضه) and the content of each row (what is for sale, session, volume, base price). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling: offers are forward-looking, while "After the session, ime_trades shows what actually sold."

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?

It states the exact question this answers ("what will be offered tomorrow / next week"), the default and maximum date window (today to +7 days, at most 45 days), and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (ime_trades after the session). It also points to ime_trades for filter semantics, leaving little to inference.

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