List the offers one customer may take

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only.' and 'Reads every page,' disclosing the operation's safety and pagination behavior. It also clarifies that results account for existing holdings, which is a key behavioral nuance. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only list operation, the disclosed traits are sufficient.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose first, followed by usage differentiation and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when to use the upgrade_only variant, and pagination behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage scenarios, differentiates from the sibling, and notes pagination. It does not describe the return format or error conditions, but these are often inferred for a list operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how upgrade_only and subscription_id work together to retrieve upgrade/downgrade options, and notes the caveat about customers holding several subscriptions. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions. The other parameters (customer_ref, visible_only) rely on schema alone, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 verb 'lists' with a specific resource 'the ProAbono offers a named customer may take right now' and explicitly differentiates from the public catalogue. It also names the sibling 'list_offers' as the alternative, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling: 'Use list_offers for the public catalogue.' It also explains the specific scenario for upgrade_only and subscription_id, including when to set them (when the customer holds several subscriptions) and what answer they yield. No ambiguity remains.

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