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

Annotations have readOnlyHint: false, which indicates mutation. The description goes beyond this by explicitly stating 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly', which is a strong disclosure. It also explains the hashing of price and terms, and the lack of entitlement/liability, adding valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly long and dense, but it front-loads the core concept (sell side) and the critical warning. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., 'publishing creates no entitlement...' could be condensed). It is structured with a clear flow but slightly verbose.

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 (6 parameters, 5 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage context well: the counterpart to post_listing, the need to bind a key, the hashing mechanism, and the behavioral implications. It does not describe return values, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a write operation, this is less critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 83%, so most parameters are described in the schema. The description adds context for some parameters (e.g., 'amount_atomic' is emphasized as 'YOUR price'), and explains the relationship between delivery_window_seconds and submission_deadline. However, the description does not provide additional semantics for 'title' or 'expiry' beyond what the schema already says.

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: it is the sell-side counterpart to post_listing, where the user is advertising to be paid. It names the resource (offer) and contrasts with a sibling (post_listing). However, it does not explicitly name the exact action 'publish an offer' beyond the tool name, but the description is clear enough.

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 explicitly contrasts with post_listing and explains when to use this tool (sell side) versus the alternative. It also mentions a prerequisite (bind a key first). It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it beyond the contrast, but the context is clear.

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