get_offer

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation with no side effects, but fails to disclose behavior on missing IDs, access restrictions, or return format details beyond 'linked tier'.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence, no redundancy. Every word adds value, including the detail about the linked tier, which enhances understanding without bloating the description.

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?

For a straightforward read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the return includes the linked tier, but omits potential error states or behavior for non-existent IDs. Still, it adequately covers the essential functionality given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the required 'offer_id' parameter. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should provide context on format or expected values. With one parameter, a baseline of 4 would apply if it were documented, but here it is not.

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 action ('Read a single offer by id') and the resource ('offer'), and adds specific context ('including its linked tier'). It efficiently distinguishes from sibling tools like list_offers (which returns multiple) and create/update offers.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. While the context implies using this tool for a single offer (vs. list_offers for multiple), the description lacks information on prerequisites, error handling, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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