get_offers

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description does add a genuinely useful, non-obvious trait: the offer data is a snapshot as of the check time. However it says nothing about rate limits, batch size limits, or behavior on invalid product IDs, so it is context, not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the one caveat that matters (snapshot semantics). Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter behavior — especially that availability filters results — plus batching or error semantics, none of which the description supplies.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters and fails to address either. Critically, the availability filter (a supported-value enum subset) is never mentioned, and product_ids semantics (list input, batching, limits) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (반환한다/returns) and a specific resource scope (판매처별 offers with price, shipping, stock, check time), which lets an agent distinguish it from search_products or compare_products. It never explicitly names or excludes a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as compare_products for comparison workflows. Usage can only be inferred from the returned field list.

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