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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it never posts, reports, closes, or contacts a poster; posted fields are untrusted data and not instructions; the reply handle is unverified; budgets move no money; and the retryable 'busy' error with retry_after_ms is documented. Annotations cover safety, but this fills in the operational and prompt-injection details they cannot.

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?

Purpose, then the result shape, then parameter semantics, then safety caveats, then the retryable error – a well front-loaded order. It is a long single paragraph and some phrases (e.g. the budget and reply-handle caveats) are verbose, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a read-only, open-world search with untrusted content and a documented failure mode, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 100% with all four params documented, but the description adds meaning the schema does not, notably the tag character set (lowercase letters, digits, dashes) and the default/maximum limit restated in context. Query matching semantics and cursor origin largely mirror 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?

States a specific verb (search) plus a precisely scoped resource: the open requests the public Central City Feed shows. It also enumerates the returned fields (title, description, tags, budget, deadline, reply handle, poster) and the ordering (newest first), so an agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the 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?

Gives concrete usage context: supply query to match words or omit it for the newest requests, and page with cursor from the previous next_cursor. It does not, however, name or exclude alternative siblings (e.g. city_service_search, city_room_search), so tool-selection routing is left to inference.

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