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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important constraint (min 25%) and auth requirement, but omits consequences like offer state, counter-offer possibilities, or side effects. Minimal transparency for a tool that creates a binding financial action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence containing exactly the essential information: action, target, constraint, and auth. No filler or redundancy.

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 sparse schema, missing annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to supply more context. It covers basic purpose and constraints but leaves out return behavior, failure modes, offer lifecycle, and the optional message parameter. Incomplete for a tool in an offer-management context.

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 needs to compensate. It adds the min 25% rule, which relates to offer_amount, but it never names or explains listing_id, offer_amount, or message. The description fails to impart meaningful meaning for 3 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('bid/offer on a listing'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_listing or withdraw_offer. It unambiguously states the action and target.

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 implies usage by stating the action and includes practical constraints (min 25% of listing price, requires auth), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like respond_to_counter or get_my_offers. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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