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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: amounts are payout-side only, buyer prices must never be surfaced, and buyers appear as first name plus last initial with no contact details. That is real disclosure beyond structured fields, though nothing is said about ordering, volume, or result limits.

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, front-loaded with the scope before the payout breakdown and the privacy rules. The middle clause — four parallel 'what the seller gets...' phrases — is dense but each item carries distinct meaning.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical domain hazards (payout framing, buyer-price suppression, identity masking) that an agent would otherwise get wrong. Only secondary details like ordering or result size are absent.

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% and the single optional include_closed flag is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 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 the resource precisely — 'offers buyers have made on the seller's own listings' — with the seller-side scope made explicit, which separates it from any buyer-facing offer lookups. It does not name seller_respond_offer as the action counterpart, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 'in PAYOUTS only' framing and the 'never quote buyer prices to the seller' rule govern how to use the output, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus seller_respond_offer or seller_list_sales, so tool-selection guidance is left implicit.

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