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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the call is polled and may be pending ('once answered'), implying an async state transition before the answer and notary stamp are available.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is dense and jargon-heavy ('offering call', 'notary stamp') but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. Both params are explained despite 0% schema coverage, making this adequate for an idempotent read tool.

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 carries the burden — and it does compensate by defining both params: 'poll' is the call's URL and 'call' is its id for a hosted identity. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema. It does not state whether the two params are mutually exclusive or optional.

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 gives a specific verb (read) and resource (offering call) and clarifies what is returned: the state and, once answered, the answer with its notary stamp. It is clear in isolation, but it never differentiates itself from nearby siblings like read_offering or notary_stamp.

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?

It does distinguish the two input modes ('by poll (its URL)' vs 'for a hosted identity, call (its id)'), which is useful parameter-level routing. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus read_offering/find_offerings, and no explicit exclusions.

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