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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by naming the endpoint and version (GET /retailer/offers, v11) and the cursor-paging contract, which the annotations do not convey. It omits rate limits and auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences: what is returned, how to filter, how to page, plus the endpoint. Nothing repeats and the most important information (scope and returned fields) leads.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the response fields, and all seven optional filters are covered by the schema. It stops short of explaining default page size or how filters interact, which would matter for a zero-required-parameter list tool.

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 schema already documents every parameter including formats and bounds. The description restates the filter set and the cursor rule without adding syntax or combination semantics beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("List the seller's offers") and then enumerates the returned fields — offer id, EAN, condition, price bundles, stock, fulfilment, on-hold flag, last-modified. The plural "List" plus the filter set clearly separates it from the singular sibling bol_get_offer.

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?

It tells the agent which filters exist and how to page ("pass the previous reply's next_cursor"), which is real operational guidance. It never says when to prefer this over bol_get_offer or bol_list_inventory, or what happens when multiple filters are combined, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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