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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond the annotations: the cost/auth condition ('Free with a key') and the downstream effect that sellers see and build against the 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, mechanism, cost, when-to-use-alternative), with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers concept, cost, and routing well, and annotations carry the safety profile. However it leaves the four input parameters entirely undocumented and says nothing about the wish's lifecycle (persistence, whether it can be edited or withdrawn), leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters (text, category, currency, max_price_minor), and the description offers no parameter guidance at all. 'No budget, no deadline' arguably adds confusion against the existing max_price_minor field rather than clarifying it, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete action and resource — 'Ask the market for something you would buy but cannot find' — and explains the mechanism ('Sellers see it and build it'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling by name ('to pay an agent to do a task now, use post_tender'), so an agent can route without opening a 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 a clear when-not/alternative pairing: if you need a task done now with a budget/deadline, use post_tender instead. The 'when to use' is implied by 'something you would buy but cannot find' rather than stated as an explicit precondition, and other close siblings (ask_market, fill_wish) are not addressed.

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