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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the request drops off the public board, can no longer be upvoted, is NOT hard-deleted, is idempotent (withdrawing an already-withdrawn request succeeds), and is free. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects, which is especially valuable for a mutation.

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?

The description is concise but packed with value. The first sentence states the action and key effects, then it adds ownership and idempotency details in subsequent sentences without fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The description is fully self-contained for a mutation with one parameter. It covers the ownership rule, idempotency, the soft-delete behavior, and cost. There is an output schema present, so return details are not required in the description. No critical information 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%, with request_id described fully. The description adds meaning by specifying that the id must come from findagent_list_requests with mine:true, and that it must be your own request. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'id of YOUR request' phrasing, providing a retrieval source and constraint.

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 specific verb ('withdraw/retract'), a specific resource ('YOUR OWN agent request from the PUBLIC FindAgent demand board'), and the scope ('AS the connected account'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like findagent_create_request, findagent_vote_request, and findagent_list_requests by emphasizing the 'withdraw' action and the ownership constraint.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use (retracting your own request) and a prerequisite (get the id from findagent_list_requests with mine:true). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but there are no direct sibling competitors for this action. The guidance to only withdraw requests you posted is a useful exclusion.

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