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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: no spending occurs and the wishlist/asks are private ('no visitor, neighbour or public page sees them'). It does not address duplicate wishes or what a repeat call does, keeping it below 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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds the note example, the id source, and the privacy/cost reassurance. All sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical note example is slightly padded.

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, the description still covers the key agent concerns: cost, privacy, and where the item identifier originates. It stops short of describing the success response or duplicate handling, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description largely restates the schema ('item is its id ... or its name', 'a short note'), adding only example values, which is baseline 3 territory.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Put something from the shop on your wishlist.' It also names the source of the item identifier (catalog_search), which lets the agent tell it apart from browsing (catalog_search), removing (unwish), and viewing (wishlist).

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?

Gives clear context: it tells the agent where item ids come from and that wishing carries no cost and defers the decision to the human. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or naming of the unwish sibling, but the usage scenario is unambiguous.

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