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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's remaining job is lighter. It adds the constraint that only 'open' wants are returned, which is useful scoping, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means. Adequate but not rich.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the use cases follow immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-param search with a fully described schema and annotation-covered safety profile, the description covers what the tool is and when to reach for it. Only minor gaps remain: what 'open' excludes (closed/fulfilled), ordering, and whether results are paged.

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 limit, query, and category are already fully documented including the enum list and default. The description adds no matching semantics (e.g. whether query is AND/OR across words, or how query and category combine), so baseline 3 applies.

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) and a scoped resource (open wanted ads on NeedToFind), which distinguishes it from write-side siblings like post_want and from user-scoped ones like my_wants. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 use cases: checking for a duplicate want before posting, and finding wants a user could fulfil. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it names no alternative tool (e.g. my_wants vs search_wants) and states no exclusions.

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