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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: ordering rules, row composition, the fact that offers are immutable so a re-termed listing appears as an ended offer beside a newer one, and that offer requests are private and never returned. This is real domain behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the ordering/null-result guidance earns its place given there is no output schema. Some sentences (the immutability aside about re-termed offers) are more editorial than operational, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does: row parity with GET /offers, seller fields, offer-own record fields, ordering, and what is deliberately excluded (requests). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 100%, so limit, offset, status, and username are already documented. The description mostly echoes the status default and its meaning rather than adding syntax or value-level detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('list the offers one user has posted') and pins the scope with 'the same list their profile's Offers tab shows to anyone.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from browse_offers by default status, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (browse_offers) and the distinguishing behavior ('DEFAULTS TO ANY STATUS, unlike browse_offers, which defaults to active'), and frames the scenario as 'one account's record.' It stops short of an explicit 'use browse_offers when you want the market,' leaving the routing condition to be inferred from the default difference.

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