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

The readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds that results are newest-first and network-observed, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or freshness beyond ordering.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the status options follow immediately.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and status filtering adequately. It omits the limit parameter's meaning and does not describe the shape of returned offers, so it is only partially complete.

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 well for status by enumerating valid values and the default, but it completely omits the limit parameter, leaving half the parameters semantically 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 clearly states the resource (POA swap offers), the operation (list), and the ordering (newest first). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_swap_offer, so it stops short of a 5.

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 status values and default are given, implying that status filtering is the main usage variation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_swap_offer or other list tools, leaving usage mostly implied.

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