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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that only *open* wants are returned (closed/fulfilled ones excluded), but says nothing about result ordering, match behavior, or empty-result handling.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its scope front-loaded before the use cases. Every clause 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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and intent adequately but omits return shape and ordering, which a search caller would want since no output schema compensates. Adequate, not complete.

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 limit, query, and an enumerated category all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no matching semantics (e.g., whether query terms are ANDed, whether category and query combine), so it does not exceed 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 and resource ('Search open wanted ads on NeedToFind') with the qualifying scope that only open wants are returned. It implicitly separates itself from owned-want siblings like my_wants, but never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 two concrete when-to-use contexts: duplicate-checking before posting a want, and discovering wants a user could fulfil. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an exclusion, so it is clear context without routing.

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