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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires auth', which is useful, and the state condition, but it does not explain what happens after withdrawal, error cases (e.g., invalid state), or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the key prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and a state condition. However, it lacks information about expected responses, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., attempting to withdraw an already-accepted offer), making it minimally complete but not fully robust.

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%, and the description does not mention the offer_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no context about the format, source, or how to obtain the ID, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Withdraw') and the specific resource ('a pending or countered offer'), distinguishing it from siblings like place_offer, respond_to_counter, and get_my_offers. The scope ('pending or countered') adds precision about which offers qualify.

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 implies the tool should be used when an offer is in a pending or countered state, and notes the auth requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for accepted offers), so it falls short of a 5.

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