List my offers

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real substance beyond that: newest-first ordering, the four possible status values with their meanings (including that rejected carries Vereel's note), and the auth requirement (brand token, read or read-and-write). This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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 scope and ordering, then status semantics, then use cases and auth. No filler; each clause (ordering, statuses, token type) carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

For a zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, status interpretation, use-case intent, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 limit (1–50, default 20) and cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no pagination or ordering semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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+resource with explicit scope: offers created by the brand that owns the token, newest first. This cleanly separates it from vereel_search_offers (broad search) and vereel_get_my_offer (single item) without the agent needing to open 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?

Names concrete use cases ('check progress', 'find an offer's id'), which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of stating exclusions or pointing to alternatives like vereel_search_offers or vereel_get_offer, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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