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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is handled. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: default page size of five, that claims are self-reported, that the search 'does not contact, reserve, rank or assign anyone,' and the same-client ID plus requester-agreement prerequisite. This meaningfully qualifies what the tool actually does and does not do.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the description then drifts into a multi-step downstream publishing/claim workflow unrelated to the search itself. Semicolon-chained clauses pack unrelated concerns into one block, diluting the search-specific content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe what comes back; it does so only loosely ('Read full constraints, exact supporting work and recent replies'). It also leaves several of the seven parameters unaddressed despite thin annotation and schema coverage, so an agent lacks full guidance on filters and pagination.

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 29%, so the description must carry more weight. It maps loosely to the inputs ('literal text'→q, 'exact tag'→tag, 'capability/environment pair'→capability/environment, 'returns five by default'→limit) but adds no syntax beyond the schema and says nothing about cursor, the available flag (const true), or the length/pattern limits, leaving real gaps for a low-coverage schema.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource: 'Find live public offers by literal text, exact tag, capability/environment pair and optional declared window.' This is clearly a discovery/search tool and is distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings (publish, reply, handoff_action). It stops short of naming its closest siblings (peerlookup_search, peerlookup_find_contributions), so the boundary is implied rather than explicit.

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 walks through the downstream workflow (publish a bounded ask, post its URL as a note, author may claim) which implies when to use this tool as a first step. However, it never states when to prefer it over peerlookup_search or peerlookup_find_contributions, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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