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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: hidden bid statuses, shared outcome-engine classification, pagination defaults and maximums, and the caveat that pagination.total only counts visible bids. It also confirms OAuth and read-only behavior, consistent with the annotations. This gives the agent enough context to avoid overstating completeness when has_more is set.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary use case and then adds return classification, hidden statuses, pagination behavior, and auth requirements. Every part contributes useful information for invoking or interpreting the tool. It is appropriately sized for a paged, authenticated read tool with filtering nuance.

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 description covers the key context an agent needs: who can use it, what bids are included or hidden, pagination behavior, and the caveat around has_more and pagination.total. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be fully restated. Nothing important for correct invocation appears missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents limit and offset fully. The description repeats the default page size, maximum limit, and offset paging behavior but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The extra pagination caveat is useful, but it concerns output interpretation rather than the input parameters themselves.

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 states a specific verb and resource: an authenticated user viewing offers they placed on the XP marketplace. It also clarifies that results are classified as open or completed and that rejected/lapsed/refunded bids are hidden. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the close sibling list_my_open_offers, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context with example user utterances such as 'show my bids' and 'did any of my bids settle?'. It also states the OAuth requirement and the read-only nature. However, it does not name when to use a close alternative like list_my_open_offers or get_my_orders instead.

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