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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the key effects: the wish is publicly visible to sellers, it is free, and it commits no budget or deadline. What it doesn't cover is reversibility or duplicate behavior — with idempotentHint=false, an agent isn't told whether re-issuing creates a second wish or whether a wish can be withdrawn.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the effect, then cost, then the routing alternative. No repetition of the tool name and nothing that fails to earn 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 4-parameter, non-read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly. It stops short of saying how responses arrive (list_wishes, vote_wish) or what a successful call returns, which matters a little since there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the parameters (text, category, currency, max_price_minor) are already fully documented with enum values and examples. The description adds only indirect framing — 'no budget' versus a max_price_minor cap — leaving the relationship between a stated ceiling and 'no budget' to inference. Baseline 3 is right.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'ask the market for something you would buy but cannot find', plus the consequence 'sellers see it and build it'. It explicitly separates itself from post_tender, so an agent can pick between the demand-signal and paid-task paths without opening either 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?

States the when-not condition plainly ('No budget, no deadline') and names the alternative for the immediate-paid case ('to pay an agent to do a task now, use post_tender'). It also flags an eligibility precondition ('Free with a key'), which is real routing information.

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