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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds material detail beyond them: close erases raw text and embedding immediately but cannot retract matches already delivered to the counterparty, and edit forces safe_tags re-extraction and re-runs matching against the active pool. That is exactly the consequence-level information an agent needs before calling a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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 per-action bullet structure is front-loaded and scannable, but the edit bullet is bloated and contains a duplicated fragment ('For dating, For dating,'), and the long label enumeration buries the operative instruction. Tightening the wording would preserve all meaning.

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 exists, and the description compensates by spelling out what 'status' returns (state, remaining TTL, total matches, safe_tags). For a destructive multi-mode tool this is close to complete; only edge behavior — editing or closing an already-closed need — is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for the hard parts: it specifies the required dating fact labels and format for i_offer/i_seek, and explains that safe_tags is normally derived unless passed explicitly. It leaves need_id and the length/item-count constraints to the schema, which is acceptable for a UUID identifier.

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 states a specific verb+resource (manage an existing need) and enumerates the three concrete modes with their effects, so an agent knows exactly what each action does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create path (publish_need) via the title's 'existing need', but never names that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gets an explicit conditional: 'status' to inspect current state, 'close' to end the need, 'edit' to change i_seek/i_offer/safe_tags. There are no exclusions though — nothing says when to republish instead of edit, or what to do when the need is already closed.

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