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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — "Needs the personal token" — but says nothing about result ordering, whether expired/inactive listings are included, or how pagination terminates, which matter for a review workflow.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the auth requirement is appended last where it belongs. The "for example before you publish something similar again" clause is slightly verbose but earns its place as usage context.

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, zero-required read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description plus structured fields cover what an agent needs to call it. Only ordering and inclusion rules for stale listings are unstated, which is a minor gap for a review-oriented 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%, with limit and cursor fully documented including defaults and the opaque next_cursor convention, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning about paging behavior; 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?

"List the offers and requests you have published" gives a specific verb plus a scoped resource (only the caller's own listings), which implicitly separates it from browse_market and get_listing. It stops short of naming those siblings outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 states a concrete use case: reviewing what you advertise, e.g. before publishing something similar again. That is clear when-to-use context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for viewing other people's listings.

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