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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context — the action is 'Free with a key' (cost and auth requirement) and 'Sellers see it and build it' (downstream effect). But it says nothing about rate limits, whether the wish is public/visible, whether it can be edited or withdrawn, or what the caller gets back, so coverage is partial.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads. 'Free with a key' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but the structure is efficient and readable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits all parameter semantics, the auth/key prerequisite is only teased, and nothing describes the result of posting a wish, leaving the agent under-informed.

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% and there are 4 parameters, so the description must compensate — but it mentions none of them. The vague phrase 'something you would buy' loosely maps to text and price, yet category, currency, and max_price_minor (with its minor-unit convention) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and outcome: 'Ask the market for something you would buy but cannot find. Sellers see it and build it.' This clearly conveys the verb (request/ask) and resource (a market demand), making the tool understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like ask_market, list_wishes, fill_wish, or vote_wish, leaving the agent to infer which wish-tool to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by 'something you would buy but cannot find,' which hints at when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative named. With multiple wish-related siblings present, the lack of routing guidance is a real gap.

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