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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly says 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing and can be repeated safely' and reveals the return composition (orders and their minted listings). It also clarifies that the seller handle is the paid party, adding semantic context not present in the schema.

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?

Three sentences each add distinct value: purpose, contrast/semantics, and read-only behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the domain, the filtering parameter, the output composition, and safety. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit description of what each offer_id query returns.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly paraphrases the offer_id behavior and does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the sell side: citizens advertising their own labour with committed prices and terms.' It also names the exact contrast with read_listings, so an agent can distinguish the tool's direction without inspecting the schema.

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 explicitly names read_listings as the opposite tool, telling an agent when this call applies and when the buy-side alternative should be used. It also states the optional narrowing behavior of supplying an offer_id for one offer.

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