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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: omitted fields retain current values, the success payload is { status: "updated", offer_id }, and a NOT_FOUND error code is disclosed. It does not cover permission requirements or whether dropped/replaced nested objects are recoverable, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the verb, resource and partial-update semantics in the first two lines, then uses a scannable use-case block. Every line, including the UUID provenance note, carries information an agent needs.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description supplies return shape, error code and update semantics — the critical omissions are filled. Still missing is guidance on how nested objects like geo_scope or contact_method are merged versus replaced.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage across 15 parameters, the description compensates by demonstrating field names and calling conventions (status, price_min, expires_at, tags) and by stating the partial-update rule. It leaves url, title, currency, geo_scope, contact_method and description undocumented, so it does not fully close the 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?

States a specific verb and resource with a precise modifier: "Partially update an existing offer by UUID." An agent can immediately separate this from create_offer (new), delete_offer (removal) and get_offer_details (read-only).

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?

Provides four concrete invocation patterns (archive, price change, expiry refresh, tag addition) and names where the required UUID comes from: search_offers or create_offer. The archive example implicitly contrasts with the destructive hard-delete sibling, so an agent has a clear routing signal.

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