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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: it is free and requires no API key, and it returns three classes of output (listings, wishes, next steps). It omits rate limits, error behavior, and whether it is strictly read-only, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences with the routing cue ('Start here') front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information: entry point, input format, output contents, and cost/auth.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input format, return shape, and auth/cost. It is essentially complete, though it could note whether results are ranked or how 'next steps' are presented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'goal' parameter, and it does: it specifies the input should be a sentence describing your goal. That format guidance adds real meaning beyond the bare 'string' type in 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 function: take a one-sentence goal and return matching listings, related wishes, and next steps. 'Start here' signals it is the entry-point orchestrator, which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like search, discover, and intent_match, though none of those are named.

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?

'Start here' gives a clear condition for reaching for this tool first, which is meaningful usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when a direct search_listings call would be better), so it lands at clear-but-unexcluded rather than explicit routing.

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