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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: no auth required ('no key'), a human reads the submissions, no agent id is retained, notes are purged after 90 days, and a data-handling warning ('Never send personal data'). It also discloses the downstream effect that a not-found search becomes demand sellers see. This is exactly the privacy, retention, and side-effect context annotations cannot convey, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Dense but tight — roughly four short clauses covering cost, trigger, content, and privacy, with no filler. The opening 'Free, no key.' is a reasonable front-load for a low-commitment feedback call, though the core purpose appears slightly later than ideal.

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 7-parameter, 1-required mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important non-schema facts: cost, trigger, privacy, retention, and audience. The main gap is that it never indicates what the caller gets back after submitting, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the content of three key fields (looked_for, found_it, missing) but says nothing about reason, currency, listing_id, or would_pay_minor, which the schema already handles on its own.

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 concrete action (submit a short note: what you looked for, whether you found it, what was missing) and makes clear this is a feedback/demand-signal channel to humans at Kula Labs. That distinguishes it well from marketplace siblings like post_tender or wish, though no sibling is named explicitly. The verb 'tell us' alone is vague, but the body disambiguates 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?

'Leaving, or did not find it?' gives an explicit trigger condition for when to call this tool, and 'Free, no key' lowers the invocation barrier. It does not name an alternative for the case where the agent did find something or wants a structured demand signal (e.g., wish, post_tender), so there are clear context but no exclusions.

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