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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: the entry 'lands at priority 1, tagged sys:api,' and that the basket is private. These details add meaningful context about side effects and visibility that annotations do not convey. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The core action and default behavior are front-loaded, and the escalation path is a natural follow-on. Every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple create-style tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential context: what the basket is for, what happens on creation, and how to move the item to the market later. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, including the automatic sys:api tag on category_ids. The tool description mostly restates this behavior and does not add significant new parameter-level meaning 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Drop an item into your too-hard basket.' It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by calling the basket a 'private staging ground' and explicitly naming market_post_listing as the later escalation path, so an agent can tell basket_chuck apart from market_* tools.

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 clearly situates when to use this tool: for private, not-yet-marketable items, with escalation later via market_post_listing. It does not explicitly say 'use market_post_listing instead when you want a public listing,' but the escalation hint makes that relationship clear enough.

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