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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds strong behavioral guarantees: provider endpoint references, credentials, allowlists, prompts, responses, private memory, shells, filesystems, and administrative APIs are never returned. It also discloses the gated execution state and auth requirement, giving a fuller picture than annotations alone.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists exclusions compactly, and the third adds two critical constraints (gated execution and auth). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, discovery-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, safety boundaries, auth requirements, and execution state. The output schema handles return value details, so no additional specification is needed. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly refrains from adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool lists active governed inference offers visible to the requesting agent, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'direct offers'. It distinguishes from execution by noting 'Discovery only' and enumerating what is never returned, making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 description provides clear context: it is for discovery only, requires an Authorization: Bearer header, and notes that Direct Session execution is currently gated. It implies when to use (for discovering offers) and what not to expect (sensitive data), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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