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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds real value by listing the returned data and the authorization source, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. invalid or expired token, unknown id) or whether the terms are locked once accepted.

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 compact sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the authorization requirement second. Nothing is wasted, though the credential sentence is dense enough that a third short clause clarifying id would have been better spend than nothing.

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 read-only inspector with no output schema, the description does the essential job by enumerating what comes back and what credentials are required. The remaining gap is the ambiguity of the id parameter against a 50%-covered schema.

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%: token is documented in the schema as the private token from a receipt or customer link, while id carries only format/pattern constraints. The description's credential sentence reinforces token's role but leaves it ambiguous whether id is the offer id or the linked request id, which is exactly the gap an agent needs filled.

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?

"Read" is a specific verb and the resource is enumerated precisely: authorized terms, terms hash, order state and processor payment links. This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like accept_offer and decline_offer, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 second sentence gives credential context (offer link credentials, or credentials of the request linked to the offer) which implies when this tool is callable, but it never states when to choose inspect_offer over request_status or describe_proposition, nor any exclusions.

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