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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description goes further by disclosing the specific error code, the fail-closed posture, and that no transaction steps are produced. This adds meaningful behavioral context not available in the 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?

A single dense sentence that fronts the core behavior (fail closed with a specific error and no steps) and then gives the reason. Zero wasted words, and the title immediately establishes the resource.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is already structured. However, the description is missing the 'evaluation' context: it does not say when the safety check passes, what the successful path looks like, or how this tool differs from the closely named prepare_accept_offer/prepare_mainnet_accept_offer. enough for seasoned agent but has a noticeable gap for exact routing.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds nothing about the parameters, but it does not need to; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 title identifies the resource and intent (internal-marketplace offer acceptance safety), and the description clarifies the actual behavior: a fail-closed guard that returns CONTRACT_PRICE_BINDING_REQUIRED with no transaction steps. This goes beyond the name by explaining the specific failure mode, though it does not make the comparison to sibling accept-offer tools in text.

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 explains why the tool fails (acceptOffer() does not bind reviewed economics), which implies the context for invoking it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus prepare_accept_offer or prepare_mainnet_accept_offer, and no mention of what successful use would return.

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