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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial context that matters in practice: the wish goes to a third-party registry, a consentUrl is returned that only the user may open, nothing is watched before confirmation, the contact stays with the portal, and matches may be incomplete. That is behavior beyond what the annotations 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?

There is no filler, and the rules that matter (consent flow, never ask for the e-mail, send the country only) are front-loaded after the trigger. It is, however, one dense paragraph that could be split, which costs it the top band.

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, yet the description still conveys the outcome values and privacy constraints an agent needs in order to behave correctly, and it warns that matches may be incomplete. Nothing essential is missing for a 7-parameter, open-world mutation.

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 the schema already documents every field. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: hiddenLimit is passed once, sealed at the portal, never stored locally, and must only be sent when the user volunteered it; holder only applies after a 'choose_holder' answer; country must never be a city or address.

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?

It states a specific action with a specific resource: publishing a standing wish to an independent local listing portal in a given country. The distinction from siblings (get/list/withdraw) is left implicit in the wording rather than naming an alternative, so it stops short of the top band.

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 gives an explicit trigger with a concrete example ('let me know until March about an estate car in Portugal...'), then covers both branches an agent will hit: 'choose_holder' (ask the user, then call again with holder) and 'no_holder'. It also states the confirmation requirement before anything is watched.

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