offsets__list_credit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a write operation ('list on the book') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. The only behavioral detail is the verification requirement.

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, consisting of a single sentence plus a note. It is front-loaded with the core action and constraint. However, the bracketed prefix ('[offsets — verified-credit carbon offset clearinghouse]') is somewhat redundant but not harmful.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, parameter semantics for most fields, and the overall process of listing a credit. The description only tells what it does and one key constraint.

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 schema has 5 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only clarifies the role of 'verification_ref', leaving 'issuer', 'project_id', 'mass_g', and 'price_minor_per_kg' unexplained. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states 'List a conservation credit on the book', which is a clear verb+resource. It also specifies the domain (offsets namespace) and the requirement for verification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'offsets__book'.

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 that verification_ref is required and unverified credits cannot be listed, providing a constraint. But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. other sibling tools (e.g., offsets__book, offsets__buy_offset) or alternatives.

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