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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details: 'published' (status filter) and 'stable, non-commercial order' (ordering guarantee). However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (limit/cursor) or response format. With annotations covering safety, this is a modest but not complete disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('List') and is appropriately brief for a straightforward listing operation. It could be slightly richer, but it earns a 4 for economy.

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 presence of limit and cursor parameters, the description omits any explanation of pagination, which is essential for correct usage. It also doesn't clarify the return format or the meaning of 'stable, non-commercial order'. For a list tool with no output schema, this is incomplete. It meets only the minimal purpose statement.

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 must explain parameters. It does not mention 'limit', 'cursor', or 'schema_version'. The agent must infer semantics from names, which is insufficient for correct invocation, especially for pagination parameters. This is a critical gap.

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 states a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'published ACI offerings', with an ordering detail ('stable, non-commercial order'). It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_offering' (single item) or 'request_listing' (create). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_offering' or 'get_listing_status'. There is no mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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