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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds real value with the note that the first founding wish stays sealed and that discounts, queue position, and an invite link are included. It says nothing, though, about authorization, what happens with an invalid or expired token, or whether the data is the caller's own versus another person's.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the sealed-wish caveat is placed inline where it matters. It is packed with parenthetical detail, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is genuinely useful and largely compensates on the response side. However, for a tool keyed on an undocumented token with no usage guidance, the description leaves out the input-side information an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter, wish_token, is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what the token is, where it comes from, or how it relates to the 'their' whose wishes are shown, which is the one piece of semantics the schema cannot supply.

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 verb is only 'Shows', and the rest of the sentence is a list of return values (founding wishes, wish list, discounts, place in line, friends, invite link) rather than a statement of what the tool does. It is clear this is a read of a person's wish status, but it never says whose wishes or how the caller is identified, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like most_wished or add_wishes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative. With siblings such as most_wished, add_wishes, and make_wish in the same namespace, an agent gets no signal about which one to pick or under what preconditions.

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