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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it returns offers at any status including filled and rescinded, includes the fills taken, and requires auth. It doesn't add anything about pagination or result size, but the status-spanning behavior is a real disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and example queries, then the differentiating capability and the auth requirement. No 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?

With an output schema covering return values, a one-param schema at full coverage, and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to call it, what statuses it spans, and that auth is required.

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% for the single standing_bid_id parameter, and the schema itself documents where the id comes from (list_my_standing_bids or create_standing_bid). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource ('get one specific standing offer') and explicitly scopes it relative to the sibling list tool, noting it covers filled and rescinded offers that list_my_standing_bids omits. An agent can pick this over the sibling 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks about one specific standing offer') and gives concrete example questions ('did that offer get my tickets'), then names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool over it.

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