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

Annotations only declare non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description earns credit by adding partial-update semantics (omitted fields preserved), an ownership requirement, and a state precondition (offer must not be archived). It does not disclose failure behavior for archived offers, whether price changes affect in-flight deals, or rate 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the action plus its partial-update behavior are front-loaded before the precondition. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

With 7 params, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering only the safety flags, the description supplies the missing ownership, patch-semantics, and state constraints. Remaining gaps are minor side-effect details (e.g., whether price edits affect open deals) rather than call-blocking omissions.

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%, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds genuinely new meaning by stating patch-style semantics across all optional fields, which the schema does not say anywhere. It does not add detail on edge cases such as exchanging payment rails while deals are live.

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 and resource ('Update the metadata of an existing offer you own') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, tags, price), which separates it from create_offer and archive_offer. It does not explicitly contrast with the near-sibling update_need or archive_offer, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the resource word.

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?

'Only the fields you provide will be changed' and 'The offer must not be archived' give clear preconditions and carve out when this tool will fail. No alternative tool is named for the case where the offer is archived (e.g., unarchive path) or for non-metadata changes, so no explicit when-not/alternatives routing.

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