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

It discloses significant side effects beyond annotations: close erases raw text and embedding immediately, but already-sent matches remain like already-sent emails, and edit forces re-extraction of safe_tags and re-runs matching. These details add real value over the annotations.

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?

The bulleted action-by-action structure keeps it scannable and front-loads the key semantics. The first phrase repeats the title, but each bullet earns its place with behavioral details.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the main output of status, the permanence of close, and the re-match side effect of edit. It does not spell out return values for edit/close errors or edge cases, but agents have enough to invoke 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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates: it explains what i_seek/i_offer/safe_tags mean in the edit flow and what safe_tags show in status. need_id and constraints mostly remain schema-only, but parameter roles are sufficient for selection.

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 immediately says 'Manage an existing need' and enumerates three concrete actions — status, close, edit — with their effects. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes the tool from siblings like publish_need and claim_matches.

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?

Each action is given an explicit usage context: 'status' gets current state, 'close' ends the need, 'edit' changes content/re-runs matching. It does not name sibling tools to avoid, but the action-level guidance is clear enough for agents to choose the right mode.

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