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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the consequential behaviors an agent needs: only the text mutates, upvotes and status are untouched, the new text is moderated, and the call is free (no payment).

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-loaded with the action and scope, then eligibility, then id sourcing, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 3-param mutation tool, the description covers eligibility, side-effect boundaries, moderation, and id sourcing — nothing needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so length limits, empty-string-clears semantics, and omit-to-keep behavior are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same constraints rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond it, so 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?

Specific verb (Edit) + resource (your own agent request on the public demand board) + scope (title/details only, as the connected account). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like findagent_create_request and findagent_vote_request without opening any 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?

Explicit eligibility rules: only requests you posted, still on the board, still open or planned; withdrawn, removed and resolved ones cannot be edited. It also names the sibling to use for obtaining the id (findagent_list_requests with mine:true).

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