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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds only the 'active' filter trait; it says nothing about result ordering, whether matched query terms apply across title vs body, or pagination behavior beyond what offset/limit already imply in the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the clarifying parenthetical immediately after. No filler, no restated title, and nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

All five parameters are documented at 100% coverage, the tool is a read-only search with no output schema needed, and the description identifies the resource and its active-only scope. The remaining gap is minor: no note on result ordering or that a paginated response is expected, which an agent must infer from limit/offset.

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 100%, with example values for query, category and deal_type, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds no syntax or matching semantics (e.g. AND-matching of terms, case handling) beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource ('Search active buyer requests') and the parenthetical clarifies what a buyer request is (demand-side licensing intent from agencies/resellers/operators), which meaningfully separates it from supply-side siblings like search_listings. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 word 'active' implies a scope constraint (only open/live requests, not closed ones), which hints at when results are appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_listings/search_agents guidance, and the dependency on list_filters for valid category values appears only inside the schema, not the description.

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