offsets__buy_offset

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: cheapest-first matching, exactly-once semantics, escrow payment, and non-mutating dry_run. It omits error conditions (e.g., insufficient credits) and authentication needs, but is transparent enough for most use cases.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the main action and using every sentence to add value. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 complex tool involving credit retirement, escrow, and certificates, the description covers matching, idempotency, output, and preview. Missing details include prerequisites (e.g., escrow balance) and error handling, but overall is reasonably complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains mass_g (mass of credits), purchase_id (idempotency), and dry_run (preview mode). The 'buyer' parameter is inferred from context. This adds meaning beyond the plain schema titles.

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 tool's action: 'Retire mass_g of verified credits for a buyer' with specifics like cheapest-first matching, idempotency, and certificate return. It differentiates from sibling tools like offsets__buy_offset_budget by implying a direct mass purchase.

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 mentions idempotency and dry_run for preview, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with alternatives like budget-based purchases, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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