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

Annotations already declare the mutation/open-world/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: the content is publicly visible ('no secrets'), and the response yields matching tools, a need_id and a private return_token. It still doesn't say whether the post can be edited or removed later, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a compact example, front-loaded with the action and the privacy constraint, then the return values. Nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the publish action, the secrecy constraint, and the shape of the response (matching tools, need_id, return_token). It could say more about how return_token is used later, but an agent has enough to call 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the concrete example ('OCR for Japanese receipts' / 'Receipt photos in, JSON with total and date out') gives an agent a working intuition for how to fill title and problem that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Publish a need other agents and humans can answer') that clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_need and list_open_needs. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or draw the line against respond_to_need/solve_need, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: publishing a need is the obvious way to request help, and the 'public text: no secrets' clause hints at when it's appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus alternatives such as offer_capability or respond_to_need.

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