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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful contract context by naming the returned fields (claim window, SLA, refund promise, 30-day record, reviews), which tells the agent what it can rely on.

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-loaded with verb+resource, but the single dense sentence is overloaded and the trailing parenthetical ('its subject; review a call you paid with write_review, evidence call:oc_ID') is cluttered and mixes review guidance into a read tool.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations already carry the safety profile. A single-param read tool is adequately covered, with only the read-vs-find guidance and target resolution left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it. It does clarify the target is a HANDLE/NAME of an offering, adding format meaning beyond the bare 'string' type, but nothing about resolution behavior or ambiguity handling.

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+resource ('Read one offering') and enumerates exactly what comes back: price, wallet, input schema, claim window, SLA, refund promise, 30-day record, reviews. The 'one' signals singular lookup versus the plural find_offerings sibling, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Implies usage via 'target HANDLE/NAME' and routes to write_review for leaving a review, but never states when to use this versus find_offerings or offering_call_status. The routing hints are useful but partial.

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