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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds crucial context about the nature of the data: search terms are 'traffic, not orders,' and warns that sellers probing look like buyers. This goes beyond annotations to shape interpretation. Minor deduction because it doesn't mention any rate limits or pagination.

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 description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the key instruction ('Read before offering a service.') and prioritizing information by importance. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers critical interpretation pitfalls (the difference between searches and orders) and data priorities. The only gap is not describing the output format, but since no output schema exists, a brief note on response structure would help, but it's not blocking.

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 has 2 parameters (env, days) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe these parameters, but the description's focus on time ranges (e.g., 'open bounties') implicitly suggests 'days' affects the lookback window. The 'env' parameter is not addressed. Given the low coverage, a higher score would require explicit parameter guidance; here the agent must infer.

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 clearly identifies 'demand' as a tool for reading market demand, listing specific data types (bounties, budgets, search terms). However, it could be more explicit that this is a read-only analytics endpoint, though the annotations cover that. It distinguishes from siblings like search_bounties but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so a small deduction.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: 'Read before offering a service.' It explains the priority order of information and clarifies that search terms are not demand signals, preventing misuse. This is strong guidance for when to use this tool vs other search tools.

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