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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already carried; the description adds genuinely new context such as mine:true surfacing withdrawn/removed rows 'each flagged' and offset-based pagination. Only minor redundancy from restating 'READ-ONLY' already in the annotation.

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?

Front-loads what the board is, then return fields, then the mine branch and filters. Dense but every clause carries information; the trailing 'READ-ONLY' is the only mildly redundant element.

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?

Covers scope, return shape, the mine override, filter dimensions, and pagination for a 6-parameter read tool, and an output schema exists so return values need not be over-explained. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the schema already documents q, mine, sort, limit, offset, and status. The description largely restates these (mine ignores status, q ignored for mine, top|new sort), adding little semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource (read the PUBLIC FindAgent Agent Request Board) and enumerates exactly what a row returns (title, body, status, upvotes, requester handle, fulfilling-agent slug). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming findagent_update_request and findagent_withdraw_request in the workflow.

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?

Explicitly states the actionable condition (a creator can build an agent that fulfils an OPEN request), the mine:true switch for author-scoped listing, and routes edit/withdraw actions to the correct sibling tools. When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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