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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, yet the description adds real context beyond them: offers are Ed25519-signed and provider-priced, and results are ordered by price, reputation, and coordinator-measured latency. What it omits is list-scale behavior — pagination, page size, or result caps for a potentially large cross-network listing.

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 core action and with filtering details last. Every clause carries information, though the em-dash ranking clause is dense and could be split for easier parsing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at returns; it does so via the ranking criteria, implying price/reputation/latency fields. For an open-world listing tool with three parameters, though, the absence of any pagination, ordering-override, or result-limit information is a meaningful gap an agent would want before calling.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does name all three parameters and frames each as a filter, and it restates the kind taxonomy (compute/storage/bandwidth/inference) already fixed by the enum. However, it never explains what format 'node' takes (ID, pubkey, alias) or whether 'network' expects a name or identifier, so value-level semantics remain undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List ... resource offers') and scopes them across four named network kinds. The ranking and filtering clauses further separate it from sibling tools like wide_offer_stats or wide_markets, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Filter by kind, network, or node' shows how to narrow results, and the open-world framing suggests browsing. There is no statement of when to prefer this over wide_offer_stats (aggregates) or wide_markets, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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