get_trade_offers

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 mentions the requirement for an API key with trade permissions, which is useful. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'active' means operationally. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a trade-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., offer details, statuses), how results are structured, or potential side effects. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying 'active' filtering and partner names inclusion, which are already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get active trade offers with partner names.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('active trade offers'), and includes partner names as a key feature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trade_offer' (singular) or 'get_trade_offers_summary,' leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 some usage context by stating 'Requires API key with trade permissions,' which indicates prerequisites. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trade_offer' or 'get_trade_history,' nor does it specify exclusions or ideal scenarios for its use.

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