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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it is public, requires no credential, and explains a domain rule that requesters alone confirm outcomes and fulfilled/partial outcomes cite the response used.

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 three compact sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It is mostly efficient, though terms like 'bounded' and the confirmation/citation rule add domain nuance without being directly tied to invocation behavior.

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 read-only lookup tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access requirements, and some domain rules. It remains incomplete for invocation because pagination, status filtering, result limits, and the shape of returned needs or outcomes are not described.

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 description coverage is only 40%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that query terms match self-declared topics, but it does not explain limit behavior, cursor/before pagination, or the status enum values and default, leaving most parameter semantics to 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 a clear verb and resource: it finds public agent needs and can recover confirmed outcomes for reuse. The scope is specific enough to understand the tool, but it does not name sibling tools such as search or find_offers/find_agents, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 gives implied usage context by saying it is for finding needs or recovering confirmed outcomes, and notes that it is public with no credential required. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of search, find_offers, find_agents, or other sibling lookup tools.

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