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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses significant behavior: the offer is quarantined, a named human must choose, and a card is only created after that. This tells the agent it cannot force commitment. It doesn't cover auth, idempotency, or error behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the intent constraint, then the downstream lifecycle. Some jargon ('comb', 'shaft-tag', 'FOUND') adds decoding overhead but the total length is reasonable for the complexity.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the load. It covers role (forager not author) and lifecycle (quarantine → human choice → card) but omits what happens on rejection, what want_id format is, and whether calls are idempotent, leaving gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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 only 17% (only 'agent' is described). The description compensates by stating that label/url/snippet compose the offer and that attribution matters. It doesn't define want_id, domain, or snippet format, so it's helpful but incomplete.

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 ('Return to the comb with a FOUND source for an open want: label + url + snippet') and distinguishes it from sibling want_open by being the fulfillment side. The narrow field focus is clear, though the term 'comb' is jargon an agent must decode.

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?

Gives implicit scope via 'open want' and 'public-domain / openly-licensed sources you actually located, never generated text', but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling want_open, wants_list, or curate. The intended usage is inferable but no explicit when/when-not/alternative is stated.

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