Topic offsets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's contribution is naming the returned data (earliest/latest offsets per partition), which does add context annotations lack, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error cases, or whether offsets are live or cached.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the framing use case front-loaded. No wasted words, no repetition of the title beyond what is necessary.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does name the key fields (earliest and latest offsets per partition). For a simple one-param read tool this is nearly sufficient, though it could state the response shape or ordering more explicitly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'topic' as the topic name. The description adds only that offsets are scoped 'per partition', which clarifies granularity but not parameter meaning itself. Baseline 3 applies since schema carries the semantics.

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 resource (earliest and latest offsets per partition for a topic) with a clear output-oriented purpose and a parenthetical framing as a backlog view. It is distinguishable from sibling describe_topic by its focus on offsets rather than topic metadata, though it never names an alternative outright.

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 phrase '(message backlog view)' implies the intended use case: gauging consumption backlog. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference siblings like describe_topic or describe_consumer_group, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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