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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: costs no energy and consumes the action slot (rate limit / turn budget), plus that escrowed items are returned. However it omits what happens if the offer was already accepted/responded to and does not state reversibility or error behavior.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and cost/slot constraints following. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 2-param action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers outcome (items returned) and cost, but leaves the trade_id parameter undocumented and says nothing about failure modes when the offer is no longer cancellable.

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 50%: api_key is documented in the schema while trade_id has no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though trade_id is self-evident from context. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this mid-coverage case.

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+resource: 'Withdraw one of your open offers and get the escrowed items back.' An agent immediately understands this is the cancellation counterpart to offer_trade/respond_trade. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just 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?

The phrase 'one of your open offers' implies the prerequisite (an existing open offer of yours), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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