offsets__list_credit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates the operation requires verification and affects the 'book', but fails to disclose potential side effects, reversibility, authorization requirements, or what happens to existing credits. The disclosed behavioral traits are limited to parameter requirements.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, though the leading bracket text could be integrated more naturally.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential required parameter and a key optional scenario. However, it lacks details on return values, side effects, and explanations for several parameters, so completeness is moderate.

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?

The description explains the meaning of verification_ref (a D-Score/land-verification attestation) and the Verra-related parameters (vcs_project_id, serial_number, vintage, methodology, registry). However, it does not explain other parameters like issuer, mass_g, project_id, price_minor_per_kg, leaving gaps. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 ('List') and resource ('conservation credit on the book'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'offsets__book' or 'offsets__register_project', though the tool name provides some distinction.

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: when listing a verified credit, with verification_ref required. It also explains the special case for trading on Verra network, detailing the additional parameters needed. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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