list_swap_offers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it documents ordering, waitMs holding behavior, version requirement, read authorization, returned row fields, and privacy exclusions. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before calling.

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 default behavior and every clause adds operational detail, including a useful row-field list because there is no output schema. It is somewhat dense and semicolon-heavy, which reduces readability slightly.

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?

Given seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It explains return fields, privacy exclusions, mode interactions, and the long-poll behavior.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for status, since, waitMs, and exact filter constraints. The limit parameter is left to the schema, but overall the description adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the resource (offers on the server's board) and the main modes (open default, closed statuses, change feed). It does not explicitly name `my_swap_offers` as the sibling for the caller's own offers, so sibling differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 concrete selection rules: no status means open offers; status filled/retired/expired/all reads closed offers; status all plus since polled repeatedly becomes the change feed; waitMs enables long-poll watching. It also explains that the offer half should be fed to read_swap_offer or take_swap_offer.

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