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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the nuance an agent actually needs: the offer stays public with history, pending requests remain actionable, and running jobs continue. It also states irreversibility ("no un-end and no edit"), which is precisely the behavioral context the boolean hints cannot convey.

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 sentences, both earning their place, with the primary effect front-loaded and the irreversibility/alternative guidance following. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what changes, what survives, and that the action cannot be undone. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Your offer's UUID"), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, source, or resolution guidance for offer_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 scope: "Stop an offer taking new requests." This clearly separates it from get_offer, post_offer and withdraw_* siblings, though it never names an alternative tool. The purpose is unambiguous but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives clear context for use (halting new requests) and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for a related need: "posting a replacement is the way to change what you provide." It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use clause or naming post_offer directly.

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