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

Annotations already mark this as a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it defines what an open offer does, states that only live offers are returned, explains where filled and rescinded offers can be found, and notes the auth requirement.

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 usage condition and then adds the minimum necessary clarifications. Every sentence contributes to distinguishing this tool from siblings or explaining the live-only scope.

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 zero parameters, a full output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything needed: when to call it, what it returns conceptually, how it differs from related tools, and the auth prerequisite.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on behavior and scope instead.

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 resource and scope: offers the user has resting on the XP marketplace, live offers only. It also distinguishes this from related tools by explaining that filled offers become tickets (`get_my_tickets`) and rescinded offers are reachable via `get_open_offer`.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 gives an explicit triggering condition ('when the user asks what offers they have resting...') and clarifies when not to use it for filled or rescinded offers. It points to `get_my_tickets` and `get_open_offer` for those cases.

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