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

The description explicitly says 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly,' going beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation with concrete side-effect and idempotency warnings. It also discloses the non-obvious guarantee that existing orders are untouched.

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 two tight sentences plus a WRITES warning, all front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds value, including the commission rationale that explains why existing orders are preserved.

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?

It covers who may call it, what mutation occurs, the public nature of the reason, and the critical invariant that existing orders remain as listings. With only two parameters and no output schema, this is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only documents the reason parameter, leaving offer_id without a description. The description compensates by tying both parameters to the action: 'your offer' clarifies offer_id's ownership role alone, and 'public reason' reinforces the published nature of the reason parameter.

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 'Seller only: stop taking orders on your offer,' naming a specific verb, resource, and actor. This sharply differentiates the tool from siblings like publish_offer or order_offer without needing to mention them.

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 clearly states the context and condition: only a seller should use this to stop taking orders on their offer. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger is unambiguous.

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