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

Discloses significant behavior beyond annotations: the post is public, attributed to the connected account, moderated, initially OPEN, returns a new request id, and is free with no payment. This goes well beyond readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Every clause earns its place: action, audience/attribution, payload constraints, moderation, initial status, return value, and cost. The main operation is front-loaded in the first phrase, and the length is appropriate for the behavioral detail it conveys.

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 two-parameter create tool with an output schema, the description covers identity, audience, payload constraints, moderation, initial status, return value, and payment. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description repeats the 5–120 character title and ≤2000 character body limits without adding new semantic meaning; 'clear title' is only marginal quality guidance.

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 the specific action ('Post an agent request onto the PUBLIC FindAgent demand board') and the purpose ('I want an agent that does X'), making it distinct from siblings like findagent_list_requests, findagent_vote_request, and findagent_withdraw_request. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear use context: use when the connected account wants to publish a demand on the public board, with title/body constraints and moderation noted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it misses exclusionary guidance that would earn a 5.

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