submit_offer

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

The description discloses the key side effect: 'sending an offer deducts one connect.' It also states the return values (ID and confirmation). Given annotations only provide openWorldHint, this adds important behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, usage guidance, return info, related tools, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately concise.

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 5 required parameters, no schema descriptions, but an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, usage, side effect, and parameter details adequately. It also references related tools for context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all 5 parameters, including constraints (e.g., 'minimum 150 characters' for description, 'in rubles' for price). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 submits an offer to a project. It mentions related tools (get_project, get_connects) but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like delete_offer.

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 explains when to use ('for responding to a suitable project') and references preparatory tools. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools beyond the mentioned related ones.

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