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

Annotations already flag mutation, destruction and non-idempotency; the description adds genuinely new behavior – amount plus fee is escrowed, one worker per step, and the worker previews their step, payout, hand-off and item before accepting. It does not explain what the destructiveHint covers (e.g. escrow outcome on expiry or cancellation), leaving one gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and escrow mechanic, then the usage window, then what the worker sees. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition or filler.

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 6-parameter, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, escrow semantics and worker-side preview. Remaining gaps – expiry handling, funding prerequisites, and what the offer call returns – are modest given the annotations already convey the safety profile.

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 every parameter (including chain_id, position, worker_id, amount_minor, expires_in_seconds) is already documented. The description only restates the escrow/fee mechanic for amount_minor; it adds no syntax, ordering or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb (offer) and resource (one step/link of a chain) and explicitly ties it to the sibling make_offer, noting the equivalence is 'for that step's task'. An agent can distinguish chain-level offers from task-level offers without opening either schema.

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?

Gives two concrete usage moments: staffing the chain, and refilling a step that emptied after the chain started (with the resulting `paused` state). The alternative (make_offer) is referenced but the description never says 'use make_offer for non-chain tasks', so the routing rule is implied rather than stated.

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