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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('Read it'), ordering ('sorted by demand'), and separation of agent plane wants. Missing details include response format, pagination, and exact filtering semantics, but the core behavior is covered.

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 short sentences front-load the core concept without wasted words. The metaphor 'desiderata desk' is concise and adds character, but does not dilute the meaning. Efficient and well-structured.

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 two-optional-param list tool, the description covers basic purpose and one behavioral trait, but leaves parameter semantics and output format undefined. Given there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is not completely self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (plane, state) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at their meanings via 'agent plane' and 'open wants', but does not explain acceptable values or usage. This is a significant gap for a list tool with no other parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies a read-only resource ('open wants') and its scope ('sorted by demand, agent plane marked and separate') with an explicit action ('Read it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like want_open and want_offer by being a listing/reading tool rather than a mutation tool.

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 provides a clear use case ('to find gaps you could dig for'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a fully explicit exclusion statement.

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