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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds useful context that submissions feed stocking decisions and can serve as a no-passport contact channel. It does not describe the response, persistence, or visibility of a submitted wish.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative-tool routing is last. The middle sentence bundles three distinct purposes (unmet search, abuse reporting, no-passport contact) somewhat densely, but overall it is compact with little waste.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and covering annotations, the description conveys purpose, alternatives, and the auth pathway. However, conflating catalog demand with abuse reporting muddies what should go in the required 'query' field, and nothing explains what a submission returns or whether it is reviewed.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with types, bounds, and patterns; the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to the fields ('what you looked for' → query, 'what you would pay' → would_pay_cents, passport mention → passport_token) but adds no syntax or format detail 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 names a concrete action (tell us what you looked for, what you would pay) and states its purpose ('This decides what we stock next'), which clearly separates it from the feedback/communication siblings. The 'Make a wish' framing is metaphorical, but the body text grounds it in real behavior. It lacks only a crisp one-line statement of the resource being created.

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?

It explicitly routes to the alternative: 'With a passport, send_feedback lets you follow our answer,' which tells the agent when to prefer a sibling tool. It also gives when-to-use contexts (unmet search needs, abuse reporting, no-passport contact). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the passport distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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