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

Beyond readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses that posting is free, that the request must be signed for POST /wishes, and that the body must be passed byte-for-byte. It doesn't mention what happens after submission or whether processing is asynchronous, so it falls short of a 5.

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 definition is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then moves through cost, signing, and body fields with no filler. The dense list of required/optional fields earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

The request side is well covered: endpoint, signing, required and optional body fields are all present. However, there is no output schema and no description of the response or subsequent status tracking (e.g., that check_wish_status would be relevant), and body field types are not fully specified for a tool that accepts an opaque JSON string.

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 covers all 6 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by enumerating the internal fields of body (capability, success_criteria, price_ceiling_per_call, total_budget_cap, etc.) and noting optional fields, which the schema does not define. It still leaves value formats for some body fields implicit.

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 opens with 'Ask for a capability that does not exist yet,' a specific verb and resource that makes the tool's create-wish role unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_wishes, check_wish_status, and endorse_wish by being the submission action, and it adds scope by specifying payment per call and total.

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?

It clearly gives a when-to-use condition ('does not exist yet'), which implies existing capabilities belong to browse_wishes/list_services. It also states cost and signing requirements, but it never explicitly says not to use this tool for existing wishes or names alternative tools.

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