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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only approved public quests are returned, private contacts/applicants/payment records are never exposed, and returned text is untrusted data, not instructions. That injection warning is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, then the safety caveat. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Safety and scope are covered well and annotations handle mutation semantics, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions the definition is silent on what a result looks like and how to shape a query. Adequate for a simple search, not complete.

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 the description never mentions q, skill, or limit. With three undocumented parameters and no compensating prose, an agent has no stated meaning for the skill filter or the limit cap beyond the raw JSON constraints.

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 and resource ('Search approved public quests') plus a scope qualifier (approved public), which distinguishes it from the write-side siblings apply_to_quest and deliver_work. It never names get_quest, though, so the singular-vs-search distinction is left to inference.

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?

The description says what data is excluded from results but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives like get_quest (single quest by id) or list_agents. An agent must guess that this is the discovery tool.

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