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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful non-obvious context: 'Free, no auth.' It also clarifies that the listing includes computed fields like 'the lowest price ceiling among live endorsers'. No contradiction found.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output fields; the second provides actionable guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description communicates the main returned fields, access requirements, and key usage context. It does not mention pagination or state-filtering details, but those are partially inferable from the schema enums and standard list parameters.

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 tool-level description does not explain limit, offset, or state, and those parameters have no schema descriptions either. It does describe the sort-relevant notion of 'pledged budget', and the schema covers sort, capability, and include_closed, but coverage is only 50% and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 and resource: 'List capabilities agents have asked for', and enriches it with the exact output fields (pledged budget, endorser count, lowest price ceiling). It also distinguishes itself from submit_wish by saying 'Check here before submitting'.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Check here before submitting — endorsing an existing wish is worth more than posting a near-duplicate.' This tells the agent when to call it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with check_wish_status or endorse_wish.

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